[council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Thu Sep 21 03:16:09 UTC 2017


Thanks for this further feedback.

I am aware that the new gTLDs went through multiple permutations and am not personally familiar with all the twists and turns from the IRT to STI to Applicant Guidebook to implementation decisions. My co-chairs may have more intimate knowledge and I invite them, as well as support staff, to chime in regarding your assertion.

Whether the RPMs as implemented are policy or just implementation details can be debated, but they are clearly not Consensus Policy as our Charter requires to consider and recommend whether one or more of them should become so.

As for determining which if any deviate the most from approved policy, I suppose we could consider that as a factor if we have to perform survey triage due to budget constraints , if we can agree on how to measure that. On the other hand, our Charter does require us to evaluate them all, and we can only collect data on the RPMs as actually implemented.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:42 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Heather Forrest; J. Scott Evans; gnso-secs at icann.org; Kathy Kleiman; GNSO Council List; Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr (amr.elsadr at icann.org)
Subject: Re: [council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council
Importance: High

On Sep 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:

Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language:

Hi Phil

While most other topics were discussed during our call today, there is one topic left about deviation from policy:

4.       There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and

Not all implementations of the new gTLD program are fully adherent to policy; actually, a good number of them are not. In RPMs specifically, the approved policy included a Clearing-house, Pre-Launch Trademark Claims, Sunrise registrations and a GPML (Globally Protected Marks Lists). The actual implementation kept the clearinghouse concept, changed claims to be a period after launch instead of pre-launch, kept sunrise registration, didn't implement a GPML; if the 2012-round staff implementation is to become policy, then policy needs to be updated to reflect that. The status quo is not approved GNSO policy.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170921/920a3941/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list