[gnso-rpm-wg] FOR REVIEW: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Sun Aug 26 11:28:21 UTC 2018


To clarify, if a proposal applies to both the URS & UDRP (i.e. can be
handled in Phase 2 of our work; e.g. publishing URS/UDRP decisions in
XML format, as a concrete proposal), do those topics still need to be
submitted now? Or, should those proposals be held back to only be
submitted during the Phase 2 process? By holding them back, there will
be fewer presentations in this Phase 1, thereby reducing the workload
in this Phase 1.

If we can get a definitive answer on this ASAP, that would be of great
assistance.

Sincerely,

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


On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Per the action items 1 and 2 below, please see the updated document,
> Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations.  WG
> members are requested to review the document and send any comments,
> questions, or suggested changes to the WG list.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:20 PM
> To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM
> PDP WG call held on 22 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to
> the wiki space the action items and notes.  Please note that these will be
> high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The
> recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> ==
>
>
>
> ACTIONS:
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational
> Recommendations  -- Edit the second bullet on page 4.  Put a period after
> "initial report".  Delete the rest of the text.
>
> ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy
> and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or
> suggested changes to the WG list.
>
>
>
> NOTES:
>
>
>
> 1.   Review Agenda/SOIs:
>
>
>
> -- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy.
>
>
>
> 2.   Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational
> Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and
> Operational Recommendations):
>
>
>
> 1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams:
>
>
>
> -- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names).
>
>
>
> 2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working
> Group members:
>
>
>
> -- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they
> won't be in order.
>
> -- Deadline is 31 August for proposals.
>
> -- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to
> resubmit using the form?  Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has
> submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring.
>
> -- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send
> proposals if we use the Word form?  Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the
> submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF.  Send
> Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang at icann.org,
>
> -- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for
> submissions?  Answer: We have a very tight timeline.  We will keep it at the
> 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to
> early the following week.
>
>
>
> 3) Content requirements for proposals:
>
>
>
> -- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their
> own proposals?  Or can the individuals have more time?  Answer: The Sub
> Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come
> up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion.  They
> don't need the same level of detail.
>
>
>
> 4) Administrative review of proposals:
>
>
>
> -- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the
> criteria.
>
>
>
> 5) Meeting Duration:
>
>
>
> 6) Presentation of Proposals:
>
>
>
> -- This is all happening over a pretty short time period.  The time zone
> issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on
> the call to present.  If not, we should be able to designate an alternate.
> This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs.
>
> -- Might need to schedule more meetings.
>
> -- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear
> from one perspective then that could be an issue.
>
> -- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the
> poll is initiated right after the call.
>
> -- Could allow less time for
>
> -- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the
> proponents and post on mailing list
>
> -- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond
> would be more effective
>
> -- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and
> discussion
>
> -- Want a diversity of people for presenting.  Need to decide which
> proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report.
>
> -- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal
> -- support across the WG.
>
> -- The poll should be transparent with names attached.
>
> -- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate
> after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later.
>
> -- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined
> level and applies equally.
>
> -- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll.
>
> -- The bias is towards inclusion.
>
>
>
> 7) Co-Chair's review of proposals:
>
>
>
> -- This is not the consensus call process.
>
> -- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community.
>
> -- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the
> perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence
> was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were
> against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen
> here?
>
> -- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be
> included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are
> excluded by default.  But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the
> plenary.
>
> -- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members.
>
> -- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third
> bullet points.  Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally.
>
> -- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over
> individual recommendations in the Final Report.  It is not the intent to
> give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations.
>
>
>
> ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4.  Put a period after "initial
> report".  Delete the rest of the text.
>
>
>
> Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal
>
>
>
> -- Urging the WG members to use the online form.
>
> -- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus
> recommendations is a separate point.  Whether a proposal is WG or individual
> will not determine what is in the Final Report.
>
>
>
> 3.   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) – postponed to the next meeting.
>
>
>
> 4.   Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month --
> Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list