[GNSO-RPM-WG] URS levels of support for public comments

Sat Oct 20 09:26:03 UTC 2018

Surprising to me that after two plus years we are still in what appears to be the same place.  If every proposal moves forward at this point, then we really have not done a very good job as a group.  All of the points in these proposals were raised in various ways over two years ago.  We have had endless discussions on these items and even had subgroups look at various issues over many months and make recommendations.  From what I can tell that work was more or less ignored and swept aside and all of the stuff from two years ago is now back on the table -- including the issue as to whether the URS is fit for its purpose.  Honestly, this seems like a giant waste of two years if we just rubber stamp the same general proposals that existed for over two years.  We should have just submitted all the proposals and points from two years ago for public comment and saved everyone a bunch of time over the course of two plus years (of course there are some that might not have wanted the extra time and enjoyed dragging this out).  All of this does not speak well for our working group and highlights an apparent disfunctionality in the process.  I am sorry that I being harsh in this assessment, but honestly after all this time we should be able to cull down the list of proposals to something short and manageable.

From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
Sent: October 20, 2018 8:21 AM
To: rtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] URS levels of support for public comments

Hi all,

I want to strongly support Rebecca on this, it seems the best way to solve the issue of "support" that was not clear even when we start with it. Throwing hours of debate to it wont help to reach a much more accurate set of proposals anyways. It would almost mean going again to each proposal to check if there is "support", if we even get to agree on that. We just have to make it clear that proposala are not put out as any consensus or agreement of the group.

For the record, and it is already in the meeting records, I thought and supported in the beginning that only proposals with no strong objections, or soft consensus, should move to public comment, and me and other were overun saying only "support" was needed, so we moved on each proposal taking notes on support interventions. I agree with Rebeca that notes might not be enough to just let staff check the level of support and decide something based on that.

 I also agree, as I stated in the call last week, that asking if the URS is fit for purpose is exactly the type of core question. We are reviewing wether thigs work or not how we planned and if we should change them. This question is absolutely relevant to that end.

 Best to all,

Mart?n Silva

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 18:49 Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet at law.harvard.edu<mailto:rtushnet at law.harvard.edu>> wrote:

Following up on what I said on one of the calls, and consistent with Greg Shatan's comments (an agreement that I think should probably be noted as significant in itself), I don't think the staff categorizations have worked.  If the ultimate point is to get feedback on potential fixes that have been raised, and we don't want to spend a lot more time on this, then I would say we may need to pass on the proposals as non-consensus proposals for community feedback. As Greg did, I supported proposals for comment that I am presently unlikely to support for adoption; based on other comments, I suspect many of us did so--which means that any staff-prepared summary of objections received is also going to be unrepresentative of the full range of arguments against a particular proposal unless we spend a lot more time on it.

One specific thing: the charter asks if the URS is fit for purpose.  If you agree that the charge allows the answer "no," then one recommendation for a fix is "make it the UDRP," if you think the game isn't worth the candle. That proposal is thus clearly within scope.

Rebecca Tushnet
Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

________________________________

Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

________________________________

***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181020/e6163608/attachment-0001.html>