[council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi Phil and all,

The NCSG had some concerns that have already been addressed as described by Mary here:

> (2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of the RPM PDP “at a glance”.


 We still do have one other concern that we are hopeful can be discussed and resolved by the Council. In the preliminary issues report for this PDP, staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP.

The NCSG, in its comment on the preliminary issues report (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/pdfGdJzoAaH1h.pdf), suggested a fourth alternative beginning with a review of the UDRP in phase 1 followed by a review of the RPMs in phase 2. For easier reference, this was also captured in the staff report of the public comments (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf) in row 68 of the table.

At this time, the NCSG is not asking that the 2-phase approach described in the charter be changed. However, since the NCSG alternative on this has not been subject to public consultation, I would like to see language in the charter (possibly amending that found under “mission & scope” as well as “timeframes & deliverables”) to instruct the working group members to consider the NCSG input while developing its work plan, and decide for themselves whether or not they believe a change in the 2-phased approach is desirable. This may also be a topic worth consulting the broader community on during the early SO/AC outreach done by every GNSO WG.

We are still actively discussing this issue within the NCSG, and will continue to do so until our monthly policy call next Tuesday. I thought, however, that it may be helpful to answer your question now, and give you some insights on our thoughts in preparation for the discussion on this topic during the next Council call.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for that explanation, Mary.
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM
> To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
>  
> Hello Phil and everyone,
>  
> As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG.
>  
> In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP.
>  
> In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing.
>  
> The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG.
>  
> I hope this helps.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>  
>  
> From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51
> To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
>  
> James:
>  
> Thanks for the update.
>  
> In regard to this—
> Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding.  
> -- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion. 
>  
> Thanks in advance,
> Philip
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
>  
> Colleagues -
>  
> Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs.  According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report.
>  
> Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council.  Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding.  For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting.
>  
> Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB.
>  
> Thank you,
>  
> J.
>  
>  
> Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)
>  
> WHEREAS:
>  
> 1.       In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program;
>  
> 2.       In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;
>  
> 3.       ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;
>  
> 4.       ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
>  
> 	• The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf);  
>  
> The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and
> 
> The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.
> 
> RESOLVED:
>  
> The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
> 
> The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.