RE: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for that explanation, Mary.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs

Hello Phil and everyone,

As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this 
motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific 
topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and 
ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered 
by the WG.

In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New 
gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. 
The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was 
agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP.

In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to 
the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of 
all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was 
to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the 
Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive 
list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not 
specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it 
thought needed addressing.

The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for 
their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft 
Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an 
express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard 
to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs

James:

Thanks for the update.

In regard to this—
Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft 
Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are 
comprehensively addressed before proceeding.
-- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised 
concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter 
next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote 
on the Motion.

Thanks in advance,
Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs

Colleagues -

Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights 
Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs.  According to the rules set out in 
the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and 
consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following 
publication of the Initial Issues Report.

Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group 
Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst 
the Council.  Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of 
the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are 
comprehensively addressed before proceeding.  For this reason, I am not 
advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but 
it can be a point of discussion during our meeting.

Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also 
attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB.

Thank you,

J.


________________________________
Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights 
Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)

WHEREAS:


1.       In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report 
on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for 
both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute 
Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than 
eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New 
gTLD Program;


2.       In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for 
delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;


3.       ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy 
Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 
October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;


4.       ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a 
Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report 
accordingly;


  1.  The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs 
in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf);

The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed 
with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the 
RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent 
second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a 
uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and
The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for 
review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.
RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all 
gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs 
(including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should 
be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of 
existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or 
additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new 
implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as 
possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to 
fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.