[GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Mon Jul 20 22:13:24 UTC 2020

Jason,

As I stated on the call, I think we're doing very well as a group.

And I take exception that there was a "blindside attack" by the participants
of the call.  The discussion was how much weight to give individual voices
vs. the collective voices of organizations - an issue we must deal with
often, both delicately & judiciously when reviewing community input in a
consensus environment.

Our "duty" is to do the best we can with the time that we have and to be
aware of, but not subordinate to, other working groups.  We need not wonder
about the interplay of constituent groups when those folks are represented
on our own calls.

Again, your characterization of granting a "super priority to a limited
class" misses the fact that this RPM was the result of years of discussion
as part of a whole, new gTLD environment created by consensus of ICANN
constituencies.  As such, it requires consensus to re-make the RPM.

We're all aware that there are documented cases of abuse on both sides of
this mechanism.  The question is how to address it.  Unfortunately, the
Proposal on the table, such as it is, is not acceptable to half of
stakeholders.

Therefore, if there's a new "workable way to have oversight" then someone in
the working group should propose a modified Proposal 7, which can then be
reviewed by the group, which could then choose to support, not support, or
refer to the GNSO for further action.

Outside of a modified Proposal 7, we should move forward rather than
re-hashing ground covered last week.

Cyntia King

O:  +1 816.633.7647

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com> 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:40 PM
To: cking at modernip.com; 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>;
'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Cc: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Cyntia,

Thank you for reviewing my statement.  While technically correct, you left
out the key issue that I and others were responding to was a blindside
attack on the value of certain voices.  Our time was spent responding to a
procedural issue of fairness and correcting this point.  

I believe we should all be able to agree that if there's a workable way to
have oversight and review of the TMCH then it's our duty to do so.  

I'll point out that this impacts Registries, Registrars, and Registrants and
I'm aware of how this interplays  with other discussions in different WGs. 

We are discussing a mechanism that grants super priority to a limited class
and, despite efforts to reframe or dismiss the issue, has documented cases
of abuse.  

I share your concerns about giving cybersquatters another way to game the
system, but that should not be the measure by which we fail to take action. 

Surely we can do better than this as a group.  Again, we may find otherwise
on tomorrow's call, but I don't believe anyone has stated that there
shouldn't be a review and/or oversight of the TMCH. 

Jason Schaeffer 

ESQwire.com P.C.

  _____  

From: cking at modernip.com <mailto:cking at modernip.com>  <cking at modernip.com
<mailto:cking at modernip.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 5:04 PM
To: 'Michael Karanicolas'; 'Marie Pattullo'
Cc: Jason Schaeffer; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC 

Just want to point out that we spoke about this Proposal for 25 mins (almost
1/3 of our meeting) last week.  And at the end of the discussion Jason
himself said "I agree that I said before that I stand on my position to
everybody that we don't have consensus and that's what's that's what's
troubling. We can't even get something out of, out of the gate here, which
is a very important issue, but I agree, we move on. Great. Thank you."

Not sure why we would revisit the topic & spend even more time agreeing
there's not consensus on this.

Our remit in this review was to a) identify whether the comments provided
new perspectives (Thursday's discussion revealed no material new info, just
the same arguments that have been made before), or b) whether there was
widespread opposition/support not already considered (Thursday's discussion,
again, did not offer a new, widespread opinion not already considered).

In the end, we could go round-and-round on several of these issues for time
unending, but the GNSO has been clear that such unending debate is not
acceptable.

Cyntia King

O:  +1 816.633.7647

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com
<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 3:32 PM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be <mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be> >
Cc: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com <mailto:jason at esqwire.com> >;
cking at modernip.com <mailto:cking at modernip.com> ; Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

I agree with Jason that the issue merits further discussion. I had a
conflict last week, and was unable to join the call, but I also did not get
the impression that the transparency issue was thoroughly discussed. This is
an issue of central importance to the working group's mandate and, frankly,
its legitimacy. There were substantive issues raised in the comments which
were not discussed, and which warrant the group's consideration.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:21 PM Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be
<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be> > wrote:

Thank you for the suggestion Jason; however, I agree with Cynthia.

As stated in the Initial Report itself:

"Some Working Group members suspected that trademark owners may have the
potential to abuse Sunrise due to TMCH's acceptance of non-standard
character claim marks and common/dictionary words, as well as the broad
scope of registration within the TMCH. However, there is a lack of concrete
evidence to substantiate that suspicion".  (pages 45 & 42).

(Emphasis added).

As discussed re all other individual proposals, at this stage we are not
discussing substance but whether there is sufficient support to put them
forward for a consensus call. There was neither sufficient support in our
Working Group, nor in the public comments, for this proposal. 

I also have a different reading of Deloitte's comment: to me

"Deloitte is taking this opportunity to share its point of view on
Individual Proposal #7 that the TMCH should transition from a closed
database to an open and searchable database...." 

reads that they are quoting the proposal; either way, as a service provider
I don't think their voice has weight here, especially as they (rightly) go
on to say that:

"...Deloitte wants to emphasize that ICANN is the owner of the TMCH database
and that not Deloitte, but IBM operates the TMDB. In this regard, it is up
to ICANN and the Community to take the ultimate decision to move from a
closed to an open database". 

We've discussed this issue at (great) length over the past years and,
agreeing with Cynthia, this is not the best use of the limited time we have
left.

Kind regards

Marie

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 9:09 PM
To: cking at modernip.com <mailto:cking at modernip.com> ; 'Julie Hedlund'
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Hi Cyntia,

Question 7 deserves the same treatment as other questions and the public
comments should be reviewed.   We were side tracked at the end of the call
last week and didn't get to the merits.

There's a documented problem of abuse and the ONLY opposition is based on
the concern that cybersquatters will themselves abuse the open TMCH.   No
one said they don't want oversight of the TMCH -- at least not openly.  

Moreover, if you review your notes and the comments there's support and room
for a compromise.  Others have seemed to indicate a willingness to solve the
problem.

Jason

From: cking at modernip.com <mailto:cking at modernip.com>  <cking at modernip.com
<mailto:cking at modernip.com> > 
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:01 PM
To: Jason Schaeffer <jason at esqwire.com <mailto:jason at esqwire.com> >; 'Julie
Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Hi All,

Respectfully, I believe this would be a waste of our remaining time.

The Proposal had significant opposition (at least as much opposition as
support).  As well, consensus has never been reached in discussions by the
full working group or (2) subgroups.

As consensus is needed to change an RPM that is itself the result of
consensus discussions; and

As we haven't been close to consensus in the working group, sub-groups or
public comments; then

I suggest we complete our review concentrating on Proposals where consensus
may still be possible.

Cyntia King

O:  +1 816.633.7647

C:  +1 818.209.6088

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 11:18 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting
- 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Hi all, 

In advance of tomorrow's call, I am requesting that we continue discussion
on the merits of TMCH Question #7.    Upon reflection, at the end of the
last WG call, we neither discussed the public comments nor debated the
underlying merits of the positions regarding opening of the TMCH.

As we are all aware, we are not debating whether or not there has been abuse
of the TMCH.  The only question is how much abuse has occurred.  

Further, those opposed to opening the TMCH DB to oversight appear to object
on the basis that cybersquatters and wrongdoers will abuse the newly opened
DB.   It does not appear that anyone rejects having oversight of the TMCH or
an ability to ensure that it is operating correctly (without abuse).
Moreover, Deliotte itself commented that the TMCH should transition from a
closed to open and searchable DB with the understanding that it is up to the
ICANN Community to make the determination.   I recall we had discussed some
compromise positions that were being considered as a way to bring oversight
while protecting against cybersquatters.

Accordingly, I request that we be prepared to continue the discussion on the
merits of TMCH Question 7 and find a workable position as a WG to review the
TMCH and avoid abuse.

Regards,

Jason

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:20 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting -
21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC

Dear RPM WG members, 

As a reminder, please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below
for the full WG meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Kind regards,

Mary, Ariel, and Julie

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:10 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> "
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July
2020 at 13:00 UTC

Dear RPM WG members, 

Please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG
meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Draft Proposed Agenda:

1.	Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
2.	Revisit Discussion of TMCH Proposals #4 [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread
sheets_d_1QTt-5Fm5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-2DyJgODCex8bj-5F-2DaKO7fI_edit-23gid-3D7
22865735&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_
lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=h-YCBbNQ0yFiF6hJviEdwDqUSzbkMEsFvHqD1z4I
x4A&s=71WyjyE0FtdOQ-oBUlPy1zQhKqCIXHZte-NxaS3p7BU&e=>  and #5
[docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread
sheets_d_1QTt-5Fm5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-2DyJgODCex8bj-5F-2DaKO7fI_edit-23gid-3D1
604477707&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx
_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=h-YCBbNQ0yFiF6hJviEdwDqUSzbkMEsFvHqD1z4
Ix4A&s=X--O_xLLIbaYclLWQ4pesNriqcBfp-AOHvDXsW1FmDI&e=> , see the Public
Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_
-aKO7fI/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qd
zoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!sweUru0Zq__
8MpVGAXJZqoIsAwrRgtO7K4ya1bssd0_iehbe0JkxZID5z67DJZ9YvzpJBRmKzw$>  and the
table of contents on the first tab; see also the message on the email
distribution list at: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together
individual TMCH #4
<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-July/004344.html> & #5
proposals   Paul Tattersfield
3.	Review of Overarching Questions #1 and #3 (skipping #2) and
Additional Overarching Questions #1, #2, and #3, see the Public Comment
Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc
Ctj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmh
V2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!sweUru0Zq__
8MpVGAXJZqoIsAwrRgtO7K4ya1bssd0_iehbe0JkxZID5z67DJZ9YvzqIpK5g9w$>  and the
table of contents on the first tab
4.	Review of General Content Questions #1 and #2 (time permitting), see
the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc
Ctj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmh
V2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!sweUru0Zq__
8MpVGAXJZqoIsAwrRgtO7K4ya1bssd0_iehbe0JkxZID5z67DJZ9YvzqIpK5g9w$>  and the
table of contents on the first tab
5.	AOB

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virus-free.
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_cam
paign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com 

_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
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.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200720/6a637516/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5366 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200720/6a637516/image001-0001.jpg>