[GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels

Wed Oct 17 17:29:21 UTC 2018

David,

But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:

"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public
Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN
Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time
for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the
WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS
in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a
rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We
believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential,
in
informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)

i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously
frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your
proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-rpm-review-03oct18-en.pdf

I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put
out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on,
where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue,
because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even
putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest
the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they
disagree with.

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
> George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
>
> I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
>
> It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
>
> To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> David McAuley
> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
> Verisign Inc.
> 703-948-4154
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
>
> David,
>
> I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support"
> proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy.
> That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
>
> I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley at verisign.com> wrote:
>> I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
>>
>> Best regards all,
>> David
>>
>> David McAuley
>> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc.
>> 703-948-4154
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George
>> Kirikos
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM
>> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals
>> & Suggested Support Levels
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited"
>> as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
>>
>> A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item"
>> about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments,
>> and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not
>> already submitted any revisions to it)
>>
>> B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
>>
>> C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
>>
>> This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
>>
>> which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
>>
>> Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were
>> presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd
>> f
>>
>> "Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for
>> making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had
>> of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put
>> into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
>>
>> so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong.
>> I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
>>
>> As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
>>
>> D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP".
>> Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
>>
>> E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not*
>> becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of
>> David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who
>> *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus
>> policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal).
>> Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1
>>> and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS
>>> Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG
>>> deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms,
>>> and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested
>>> levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe
>>> a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they
>>> wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support.  For
>>> those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first
>>> face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at
>>> 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting,
>>> please feel free to let us know  your thoughts online.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of
>>> the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working
>>> Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial
>>> Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be
>>> clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption,
>>> subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to
>>> be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting
>>> community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals,
>>> will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to
>>> these suggested levels of support:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the
>>> WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the
>>> suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are
>>> any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination
>>> with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the
>>> deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all
>>> proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will
>>> note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve
>>> adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the
>>> proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose
>>> revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them
>>> to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that
>>> they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg