[Gnso-rpm-data] Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60

Thu Oct 26 22:26:35 UTC 2017

Kurt:

Your points are well put and I agree.

[tps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]

J. Scott Evans

408.536.5336 (tel)

345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544

Director, Trademarks

408.709.6162 (cell)

San Jose, CA, 95110, USA

Adobe. Make It an Experience.

jsevans at adobe.com

www.adobe.com

From: <gnso-rpm-data-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 3:23 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-data at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-data] Preparation for Sub Team session at ICANN60

Hi MaryL

Thank you for taking the time for putting this together. Here is my understanding.

On agenda item 2, I think this is the items the ICANN staff members are compiling.  I think it makes sense to take a short while for you to update and get further guidance in order to make further progress. So if that understanding is correct, I am for that.

On agenda item 3, This is not a community discussion session as I understand it. We had decided against that in our last meeting.  It should be either a closed working session (anyone from the full PDP should be welcome) or at least “observe quietly”. We are not ready to report to the group, let along get feedback from the community. For example, in the case of the questions I proposed, we might be asking registrars for help but I am not sure we want to do that in an open forum through spoken words - I was thinking it might be done in a more carefully crafted letter.

I think Agenda item 3 might be to:

1) review whatever questions we have received for the different team members. If there are multiple sets, there are sure to be multiple approaches (e.g., the level of detail, the degree of change from the GNSO approved set, potential expense). We could then decide which approach would be the most effective for our purposes.

2) also decide if we are going to recruit professionals for this an the quickest way to get that done.

What does everyone think?

Best regards,

Kurt

On Oct 26, 2017, at 12:24 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear all,

Following from the last Sub Team call this past Friday, staff would like to confirm if the following agenda for the upcoming 90-minute Sub Team session at ICANN60 on Saturday 28 October (15.15-16.45 local time) is appropriate:

  1.  Welcome and introductions (by Phil as Working Group chair, or Kurt?)
  2.  Staff update on Table 2
·         The objective here is to not only update the Sub Team on what is being done, what is yet to do, but perhaps more importantly, obtain more specific guidance and direction on some of the tasks that are currently phrased in more general terms

  1.  Sub Team review of suggested questions and comments received to date for Table 1
·         How we approach this item may depend on what additional suggestions, and under which target group (registries, registrars, TM/brand owners, actual/potential registrants, trade associations/industry and public interest groups) we receive before Saturday. Given: (a) that Lori has already informed us she will be out of pocket through early November (and has taken on Section 6, the industry and public interest groups/trade associations); and (b) that we are likely to have a number of TM/brand owners and registrants, as well as possibly a number of registries and registrars, perhaps we should focus the discussion on these groups?
·         If no questions are received for a particular target group, we can ask the audience what objective they think the Charter question vis-à-vis a particular group is intended to achieve, and what specific suggestions they may have for surveying that group
·         Where questions are received, we can of course work through them.

  1.  Sub Team discussion of expected timeline for completion of work on Table 1
  2.  Next steps

Please also be so kind as to fill out your “assigned” section in Table 1 on the Google Doc created by Ariel as soon as possible, so that we can get a sense before the end of the week on what specific sections can be reviewed and discussed on Saturday: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE/edit?usp=sharing<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fa%2Ficann.org%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F10qENwqvozS-TZfJiVOx5MG71YIsqeX95WkPqhA64ayE%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54814a5a56404603504f08d51cc04ad7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446534576232342&sdata=vQWfN07L3ysmPUrquUm5x7Nh%2FI7P3pn%2Fel13s43mM1A%3D&reserved=0> (please refer to Ariel’s email for who’s “assigned” to what section).

Please let us know your thoughts and suggestions on the Saturday agenda.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-data mailing list
Gnso-rpm-data at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-data at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-data<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-data&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54814a5a56404603504f08d51cc04ad7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446534576232342&sdata=6LyQhXzo0vT4nz6Xam%2BxPS39UNdHm5tRhVQa6hLIZ2Q%3D&reserved=0>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20171026/e4c7acff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1577 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/attachments/20171026/e4c7acff/image001-0001.gif>