[PC-NCSG] Motion on RPMs & overall thoughts on the amount of work coming onto the GNSO table.

[Kathy Kleiman]

Amr and All Councilors,
I wanted to expand on this. By separating out the UDRP and New gTLD 
Rights Protection Mechanisms -- and making the New gTLD Protection 
Mechanisms FIRST -- Staff and the IPC are ensuring that basic facts will 
not be heard in the right order. IPC and Staff want a stronger URS. The 
fact is that *even with the advent of many new gTLDs i n 2015,* the UDRP 
filings went down - and there were not too many URS filings either.

By hearing these issues in isolation, with New gTLDs first, there will 
be a lot of whining about the need for a faster and more effective URS 
(which NCSG successfully criticized as "Accuse you lose" because it was 
initially so one-sided) and reforms to the URS will be forced without 
the full context of the UDRP.

Truly, if the world were coming to an end with New gTLDs (as the IPC 
assured us it would be), then the UDRP filings would have gone up, not 
down.

I think we should be voting No on this RPM Issues Report. I hope you will.

Kathy

On 1/18/2016 2:13 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Hi Amr,
> I think we talked about this some time ago, but I don't understand why 
> we are making the motion for the RPMs PDP initiation? Our NCSG 
> comments said very clearly that the two-phases proposed by the IPC 
> were Not valid - that there was no way we should review New gTLD 
> protections because a) still pretty early and b) UDRP is the trunk of 
> the tree. Why should we evaluate the branches when we need to evaluate 
> the health of the entire tree? /Why is the world are we, the NCSG, 
> introducing this motion?
>
> /On other thoughts, the idea of RPM, Whois2 and New gTLD PDPs going on 
> at the same time is a nightmare. Every other stakeholder group has 
> professionals -- people who are paid by their companies or clients to 
> participate in these proceedings. We don't and yet we are the ones who 
> are called on to do the drafting, reviewing completely one-sided and 
> self-serving proposals and organize oppositions.
>
> There must be something that you, Amr and our other Councilors, can do 
> to slow this train down. If not, some of us are going to have to jump 
> off...
>
> Best regards,
> Kathy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160118/a0150b85/attachment.html>