[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,,

At this time, I have 2 concerns with the Proposed Procedures for URS
Policy and Operational Recommendations.

1. On page 3, the use of a poll is mentioned. In keeping with ICANN's
transparency requirements, that poll should not be an anonymous poll.

2. On page 4, there's a double-standard in the default treatment of
Sub Team Recommendations vs. Working Group member submissions, and
that double-standard should be eliminated, as there was no deference
to the work of the sub teams.

In particular, Sub Team recommendations are included by default
"unless there is substantial opposition".

On the other hand, Working Group member submissions are *excluded* by
default, unless there is substantial support.

The standard for inclusion should be made identical for all proposals,
regardless of where they originated.

Also, the standard should be objectively stated *prior* to
measurement, to ensure that a "substantial support" or "substantial
opposition" (whichever uniform standard ultimately applies) is not
determined in an ad hoc manner.

Sincerely,

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



On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that the
> Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group discussion and
> development of URS policy and operational recommendations over the course of
> the upcoming Working Group meetings in August and September, beginning with
> our next meeting.
>
>
>
> The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its current
> timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by the end of
> September. It is therefore imperative that the Working Group agrees on tight
> procedures that provide a fair opportunity for all members to propose
> operational and policy modifications to the URS. In addition, the procedures
> should facilitate identification of those proposals that lack significant
> support and thus may be deferred to the Initial Report for public comment,
> or to Phase Two of the WG’s efforts because they are substantially
> intertwined with UDRP issues.
>
>
>
> In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form for
> WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also provide a .doc
> version of the online survey form to WG members who have difficulty
> accessing the online survey.
>
>
>
> Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the meeting
> on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC.  Here also is a draft agenda for your
> review:
>
>
>
> Draft Working Group Agenda:
>
>
>
> Review Agenda/SOIs
> Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational
> Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and
> Operational Recommendations)
> Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed
> framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings,
> Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group
> Discussion)
> AOB
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
>
> On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg