[GNSO-RPM-WG] Updated Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Including Submission of Additional Data

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Feb 1 15:41:46 UTC 2019


And if anyone needed any further evidence about the differential
treatment of members of this PDP, witness what happened on the sub
teams this week.

ICANN staff delivered documents on Tuesday that sub team members were
online given until Thursday (yesterday) to review.

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000176.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000183.html

I raised concerns about this short time window (along with other
issues of workload) on the calls, but nothing happens. I then had to
rearrange my schedule to do the review, and was the only person in the
2 sub teams to have made comments:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000196.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000196.html

The clean versions are then prepared based on my edits:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000198.html
(23:49 UTC)
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000198.html
(23:48:59 UTC)

After all this (note the timestamps), comes a request from one of the
co-chairs of this PDP for more time:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000199.html
(23:56:40 UTC)

That request is granted shortly thereafter!

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-February/000199.html

So, we're all "equal" as members, but some members are more "equal"
than others in terms of changing the workload and timelines.

This illustrates exactly why we need more "workers" and fewer
"overseers/managers". With everyone on an equal footing **doing*** the
work, and a professional external and neutral project manager
facilitating the work, we'd have, among other things:

a) more people actually doing the work (as they would be freed from
the responsibility and time required to "manage", and could reinvest
that time in doing the work), which should results in greater work
output

b) better understanding of the realities of the workload

c) greater fairness when providing input as to unfair
workloads/timelines, as the professional external and neutral project
manager would be independent, as the "status" of the current co-chairs
would revert to that of everyone else.

Co-chairs aren't meant to be "rulers" who dictate what's going to
happen, but are intended to "serve" the needs of the members who are
trying to get the work done. That often seems to be forgotten.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:30 AM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Brian,
>
> That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that
> matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having
> been circulated for the URS?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can
> remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual
> proposals, see:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
>
> But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****,
> that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different.
> i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
>
> and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had
> ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have
> had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this
> in early January 2019:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
>
> And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to
> create a process:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
>
> (i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9,
> although it had been raised previously)
>
> That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what
> ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
>
> Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than
> they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly
> ridiculous.
>
> Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group
> meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
>
> "  * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
>
> How convenient.
>
> Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd
> already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that
> working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
>
> Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did
> absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too
> hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.")
> Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people
> listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When
> working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic
> timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized,
> or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what
> others must endure.
>
> Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration
> laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an
> apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce
> barriers to participation and trying to
> have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply
> create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome.  Barriers are
> erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e.
> the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was
> identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep
> flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix
> them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources
> (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
>
> This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub
> teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
>
> By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for
> the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according
> to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered
> until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until
> April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to
> discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the
> procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual
> proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams
> had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of
> expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over
> individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for
> public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
>
> Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader
> community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC
> has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour
> of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the
> perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of
> the subteams and/or the working group.
>
> When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced
> representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the
> current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub
> team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also
> becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
>
> The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower
> barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can
> weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference,
> especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely
> would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
>
> Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working
> group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions,
> I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I
> foreshadowed it each time).  Every time. It seems that I will have to
> demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not
> appear to be taken seriously.
>
> John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a
> professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the
> co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the
> outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be
> revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction
> that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive
> travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3
> ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a
> professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry,
> who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I
> think that would likely have no financial impact.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing
> > list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated
> > previously for the URS?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > http://www.leap.com/
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> > >
> > > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
> > >
> > > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
> > >
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of
> > > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to
> > > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why
> > > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP,
> > > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve
> > > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
> > >
> > > http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
> > >
> > > https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-domains-in-new-gtld-sunrises/
> > >
> > > https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-well-one-company-got-24-new-gtld-using-the-famous-trademark-the/
> > >
> > > https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing-new-gtlds-to-lose-6x-the-number-of-registrations/
> > >
> > > https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
> > >
> > > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-shopping-ended-up-in-the-trademark-clearinghouse-for-new-tlds/
> > >
> > > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
> > >
> > > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
> > >
> > > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typically-get-100-domains-but-they-also-got-gamed/
> > >
> > > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes
> > > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes
> > > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing
> > > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have
> > > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet
> > > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff
> > > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so
> > > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon
> > > what ICANN staff abandoned.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > 416-588-0269
> > > http://www.leap.com/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list