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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 00:03:53 UTC 2018


Taking these points in order:

My focus was not merely on “pure numbers,” though the numbers are telling.
As I said before, I took quite some time to look at the underlying
documents (call transcripts, chat transcripts and emails) to come to the
conclusions that I did.

The rest of this emaiul is largely a collection of scurrilous falsehoods
and unsupported allegations.  You’re either mistaken, misinformed or
mudslinging — or some combination of the three.  Inciting “tribal warfare”
is a sad way 😞 to proceed, especially from someone who claims to have an
idea of what would “reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re
supposed to be implementing.”

I didn’t know what “brigading” means, so I found this explanatory thread on
Reddit (where this term seems to be used) at
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/36xhxc/
what_is_brigading_and_how_do_you_do_it/:

Q: What is “brigading” and how do you do it?  I have seen it getting
mentioned because it violates reddit rules and people who do it get
shadowbanned.

 Response 1: Downvote brigading, or just brigading, is when a group of
users, generally outsiders to the targeted sub or community, "invade" a
specific subreddit or larger community and flood it with downvotes in order
to damage karma dynamics on the targeted sub. Users can also be targeted by
a downvote brigade in certain situations.

 While it often refers to an attack that is intentionally orchestrated by
the "brigade", whose members consist of separate people, it's also
sometimes used to refer to sockpuppet tactics, in which people create extra
user accounts for the purpose of acquiring more voting power (this in
particular is very very much against reddit rules), or simply an unplanned
circlejerk of downvotes against a particular user or community.

 Response 2: From what I understand, Brigading is when a group or members
of a sub, purposely flood another sub to cause turmoil or make it seem like
their side is more popular.

 Response 3: brigading is when you incite an invasion from one subreddit to
another, to harass and vote down comments and posts.  contrary to popular
opinion, when people actually engage in dialogue, it's not brigading.
Accusing any one or any number of people of “brigading” is clearly
insulting and essentially an accusation of a violation of the Expected
Standards of Behavior.  In this case it is utterly false.

Speaking for myself, I’m not paid to say a darn thing in this Working Group
or any other Working Group.  Ever.  Can you say the same thing, Michael?

There’s no “brigading” here, at least not in any group that I might be
identified with.  No “industry” put me here.  The accusation inherent in
talking about an industry “affording” something is trash.  The image of an
“industry” throwing around money to gather up a bunch of stooges who take
the time to participate and contribute solely because they’re paid to be
here is “fake news.”  I’m here of my own free will, and my views are based
on my own principles and beliefs.  I think that every one of the people you
are accusing can say the same thing.  Most of us are volunteers.  Even
those whose job description requires them to be here put in far more time
than they’re paid for.  And they took that job because of their views, not
vice versa.

The idea we’re some sort of Greek chorus of puppets saying the same thing
isn’t true either.  There are disagreements and differences of opinion
among those who support the protection of IP rights.  That was clear from
the transcripts I’ve read, and its clear to anyone who is trying to be
fair-minded about the process.

If your accusation of brigading is just an over-hyped accusation of
coordinating, that should not be an issue at all.  People work in groups.
But I can tell you that there’s no script, no talking points memo or any
“Whipping” of people into consistent positions.  I’d love to hear about any
coordination or meetings that you’re involved in, and who runs them —
though I wouldn’t stoop to calling it “brigading.”  I assume you’re sincere
in your views.  You should grant others the same understanding.

The fact that several domain investors and their industry group are in the
BC doesn’t make their position a BC position, nor is that any compelling
argument for breadth of support. There are BC people on all sides of this
question.  Is the fact that “people in leadership positions” have supported
something supposed to impress me?  Should I quake in awe?  People in
leadership positions are no different from the rest of us.  I should know.
Support NCUC and NPOC (especially in its current incarnation - NPOC 4.0?)
is hardly an indication of breadth of support.  The fact that George joined
“ALAC” (actually At Large, and more specifically NARALO, a Regional At
Large Organization, but let’s not quibble) as an individual “end user”
member proves even less.  I’m also involved in At Large, to a fairly
significant degree (though I’m participating here in my individual
capacity, not as a representative of NARALO or of any At Large structure).
In sum, you’ve just rattled off the usual suspects, no matter how they’re
badged.

As for who’s “supporting” what and what that means — you seem to have
fallen prey to the issue I raised earlier, confusing and conflating support
for publication with support for a proposal.  Mashing them together
essentially invalidates anything useful or analytic in your statement.  I
supported the publication of many of George’s proposals, because I thought
they should receive public comment.  Others you’ve lumped into your
imagined “brigade” did the same thing.  I’m sorry that people aren’t
behaving as tribally and predictably and brigade-ly as your Grimm’s Fairy
Tale would have you believe.  One thing you learn when you’ve been around
ICANN-land is that every group has fables about other groups, and these are
assembled by taking a very small kernel of truth and then wrapping it in a
massive amount of falsehoods and prejudices.  Much better to deal with
people as people, and you would be (pleasantly) surprised what people can
ultimately support.

In that vein, I would encourage you not to try and build consensus by
division, as that is an oxymoron.  We need to work together, and throwing
around tired canards and wild accusations is just counterproductive.

Peace out,

Greg


On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:07 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I disagree with Greg’s reasoning regarding levels of support, as I
> think the focus on pure numbers is misleading. Just because a
> particular industry can afford to brigade the group with a dozen
> people, all of whom are essentially paid to say the same thing, does
> not indicate that a particular proposal has a lot of support – nor
> would that reasoning reflect well on the “multistakeholder model”
> we’re supposed to be implementing.
>
> I think a much more telling indicator is the breadth of support,
> particularly across constituencies. Here’s it’s worth noting that
> several of George’s proposals (ALAC) have attracted support from the
> ICA (BC) and from people in leadership positions in both the NCUC and
> NPOC.
>
> That, in my mind, reflects a broader base of support, and ultimately a
> greater likelihood that these proposals will attract consensus, than a
> proposal which attracts vehement support from the IPC but no support
> from outside that narrow constituency.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Julie and all,
> >
> > I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed
> recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two
> levels.
> >
> > First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about
> whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a
> recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
> >
> > This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying
> transcripts, chats and emails it references.  Some participants were
> (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support
> for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance
> of a recommendation.  In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only
> in connection with substance.  More rarely, views focused only on
> publication.
> >
> > Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements
> of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for
> each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance),
> sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of
> opposition.  This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity
> about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on
> “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
> >
> > In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear
> whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the
> recommendation.  This creates an interpretation problem.  Of course, those
> who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication.
> But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot
> be read as stating opposition to publication.  Indeed, in several cases, I
> supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
> >
> > There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up.  While I
> was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I
> supported a proposal, but I said nothing.  Also, sometimes I said nothing
> where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the
> oppositions already put forward.   If I had known that the interventions
> were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and
> opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
> >
> > It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our
> report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition
> to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to
> the substance of the proposal.  Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
> >
> > On to the specific Recommendations.
> >
> > 12.  Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in
> bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support”
> rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to
> reflect the concerns raised in this discussion.  There’s no need to
> reiterate everything in that thread here.
> >
> > 14/15.  Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as
> limited support, when it should be adequate support.  This may be based on
> a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and
> most oppose.”  These two proposals together have 11 proponents.  Clearly
> it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.”  While
> 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in
> substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you
> decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more
> proponents than detractors.  In addition, at least one participant (David
> McAuley) supported publication.   I will expressly support publication as
> well.
> >
> > 18/20.  I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals
> 18-20.  I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise.  I’ll also note that
> “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
> >
> > 33.  Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate”
> based on the chat and the email thread indicated.  There are several
> statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the
> intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things)
> it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts).  I would
> even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and
> email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this
> proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support.  I
> am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a
> “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise).  Nor am I trying
> to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to
> discredit anyone’s views.  Those things would be disruptive of our
> workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those
> individuals.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181017/316898ef/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list