<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Correcting the record: My discussion with Kathy Kleiman on this subject took
place a few weeks ago at the State of the Net conference in Washington, and not
at the NCPH meeting in LA.
After a while all these meetings start to merge together in the fog of memory
;-)
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] On
Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 11:51 AM
To: Amr Elsadr
Cc: Mary Wong; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Amr:
Thanks for the feedback. Let me share my personal views, as I have not yet
consulted with BC members on your suggestion.
As you state, " ...staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling
this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment
period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why
we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for
the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP."
So, as you recount, the RPM WG approach that received the most public support
in the comments was a 2-phased review, addressing the new gTLD RPMs first and
then the UDRP.
You now propose that Council, rather than approving a Charter that adopts that
approach, kick the can down the road and leave it to the WG to decide how to
proceed. I have several concerns about approving such an open-ended Charter on
such a critical question:
· Are we abdicating our responsibility as Councilors by not taking a
position on how the WG should proceed?
· Does this undermine the utility of the public comment process if we
fail to adopt the approach that received the most support in it?
· Would this encourage certain groups to try to “pack” the WG in order
the reverse the approach that won the most public support?
· Would this start the WG off on the wrong foot by guaranteeing a
potentially divisive debate as it commences its work?
I raise these questions not just as the representative of the BC, which favored
the approach that is now in the draft Charter. I also am the ICA’s
representative on the BC, and ICA would have preferred a UDRP review commencing
in 2011, and is not enthused by the idea that the Charter approach would defer
its initiation until at least next year, if not later. Nonetheless, after
weighing all considerations, ICA submitted a public comment that favored the
draft Charter approach because that is the only one we thought would really
work given where we are.
I discussed this matter at some length with Kathy Kleiman during the NCPH
meeting in LA last week, and I fully understand and respect the views of those
who believe that the UDRP review should come prior to that for the new gTLD
RPMs. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced.
However, the question before Council is not substantive but procedural – Should
Council take responsibility to decide this question and instruct the WG to
proceed in the manner that received the most public support? Or do we want to
pass the responsibility on to the WG and abide by whatever decision it comes to
after yet more debate?
Best regards,
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Mary Wong; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Hi Phil and all,
The NCSG had some concerns that have already been addressed as described by
Mary here:
> (2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the
> community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums
> regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included
> in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues
> noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought
> also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter
> would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of
> the RPM PDP “at a glance”.
We still do have one other concern that we are hopeful can be discussed and
resolved by the Council. In the preliminary issues report for this PDP, staff
had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that
received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in
to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased
approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed
by a review of the UDRP.
The NCSG, in its comment on the preliminary issues report
(http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/pdfGdJzoAaH1h.pdf),
suggested a fourth alternative beginning with a review of the UDRP in phase 1
followed by a review of the RPMs in phase 2. For easier reference, this was
also captured in the staff report of the public comments
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue-02dec15-en.pdf)
in row 68 of the table.
At this time, the NCSG is not asking that the 2-phase approach described in the
charter be changed. However, since the NCSG alternative on this has not been
subject to public consultation, I would like to see language in the charter
(possibly amending that found under “mission & scope” as well as “timeframes &
deliverables”) to instruct the working group members to consider the NCSG input
while developing its work plan, and decide for themselves whether or not they
believe a change in the 2-phased approach is desirable. This may also be a
topic worth consulting the broader community on during the early SO/AC outreach
done by every GNSO WG.
We are still actively discussing this issue within the NCSG, and will continue
to do so until our monthly policy call next Tuesday. I thought, however, that
it may be helpful to answer your question now, and give you some insights on
our thoughts in preparation for the discussion on this topic during the next
Council call.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Phil Corwin
> <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> 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;
>
> • 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.p
> df);
>
> 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.
-----
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|