[council] FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Draft Addendum to RPM Charter

Thu Sep 19 20:09:59 UTC 2019

Thanks Maxim.  I’m not opposed to these comments, but I just don’t think they will be applicable.  I don’t think that ICANN is likely to solve the legal immunity/voluntary arbitration conundrum with a technical fix.  Even so, if you would like to see these changes, I don’t see any reason not to keep them.

Best,
Paul

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Maxim Alzoba
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:31 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] FOR DISCUSSION ONLY: Draft Addendum to RPM Charter

Dear Councilors,

please find the suggestions in yellow
(the main idea is to ensure that the small group, which decisions are to be almost auto-approved by the RPM group
with expertise in international law does not create something not feasible from the technical or operational side of things),

Without such changes (or similar) we might have something we are trying to resolve in PDP3.0 ...
or to have some result of the work of the group not very doable or implementable in reality.

Please do not see it as an attempt to undermine efforts of the members of Community to resolve this long standing issue,
but as attempt to ensure smooth implementation of the future policy.

===

Membership Criteria & Team Composition:
All Members of the IGO Work Track must:
1.       Possess a working understanding of international intellectual property law, public international law, international arbitration or alternative dispute resolution; except that members from the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder groups may instead appoint one or more members with technical and operational expertise to ensure that the group’s recommendations are technically and operationally feasible.
2.       Be responsible to their appointing organization, seeking input as necessary and keeping the appointing organization informed of progress;
3.        Agree to respect the GNSO PDP and other applicable GNSO rules of procedure;
4.       Be willing to work, in good faith, toward consensus;
5.       Commit to Terms of Participation, to be set by the GNSO Council prior to the first meeting of the IGO Work Track;
6.       Provide an updated Statement of Interest in accordance with Section 5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures; and
7.       Be available to actively contribute to the discussion and activities of the Work Track on an ongoing basis.

AND

Section 4: Deliverables & Reporting
Deliverables:
As one of its first tasks, the IGO Work Track must develop a detailed work plan, including a timeline describing specific and manageable deliverables during the course of and at the end of its work. Unless
expressly approved by the GNSO Council:
(i) The IGO Work Track must publish its initial recommendations for public comment prior to delivering its final recommendations to the full RPM Working Group; the initial recommendations shall discuss the impact of the recommendations on technical and operational feasibility for contracted parties -- contracted party members may provide a supplemental written statement outlining any concerns for the community to consider;
(ii) The IGO Work Track must consider all public comments received in developing its final recommendations and, to the extent that it does not accept specific policy proposals raised in a public comment, it shall document its rationale for such non-acceptance in its Final Report:
(ii) The RPM Working Group must consider the final recommendations from the IGO Work Track as a matter of priority, including any technical or operational feasibility challenges identified;
(iii) In considering the final recommendations, the RPM Working Group is expected generally to approve them unless a broad cross-section of the Working Group objects on the basis of information not previously raised to the IGO Work Track or in the public comments, and documents the rationale for such objection(s), or unless the RPM Working Group determines that the recommendations are not technically or operationally feasible;
(iv) In the case of such broad, documented objection(s), the IGO Work Track shall specifically and expeditiously consider the objection(s) and either provide a detailed written explanation of how the concerns raised were addressed in its recommendations, or decide whether or not to amend its recommendations in light of the concerns raised (such amended recommendations to be referred to as Supplemental Recommendations);
(v) Where the IGO Work Track has provided the required explanation or Supplemental Recommendations (as applicable), the RPM Working Group shall approve the recommendation or Supplemental Recommendations, except that where the original recommendations are approved, the RPM Working Group may elect to include written statements from Working Group members for the attention of the GNSO Council and SHALL include any statements from contracted party members that the recommendations are not technically or operationally feasible; and
(vi) The RPM Working Group must submit its final recommendations on this topic to the GNSO Council no later than [three months] after the close of the IGO Work Track public comment period.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

On 10 Sep 2019, at 03:57, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:

SENT ON BEHALF OF PAUL MCGRADY

Dear Councilors,

On behalf of Paul McGrady, who led the small team effort along with Martin Silva Valent and Elsa Saad to develop a draft amendment to the current Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group Charter, please find attached a proposed draft Addendum to the RPM Charter for your review and discussion on the upcoming Council call. The document has also been reviewed by Petter Rindforth, the Chair of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP Working Group. You will see some comments and yellow-highlighted text of some provisions that the Council may wish to discuss.

Based on the small team’s understanding and the informal discussion that was held in Marrakech between several GNSO Councilors, GAC and IGO representatives, this draft document will also be sent to GAC leadership for their feedback, with the expectation that a final version can be voted on by the GNSO Council by/in Montreal.

Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve (on behalf of Paul)
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190919/5918e953/attachment-0001.html>