[gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations

Tue Sep 11 21:17:53 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues
that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who
explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However,
several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the
proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to
the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of
the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following
proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP:

- #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders
- #15 - repeat offenders penalties
- #21 - loser pays
- #22 - loser pays
- #26 - panelist rotation
- #27 - current CV of panelists
- #28 - conflict of interest policy

Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether
they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral
to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a
topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same
proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a
proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to
the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration
with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2.

I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to
be submitted, on August 26, 2018:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html

And the co-chairs subsequently decided that:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html

"Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the
co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal
from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it
has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final
Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF)

But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying:

"To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted
presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional
submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is
at that stage of its work."

In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact
the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do,
especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't
get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have
proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be
limited only to the UDRP.

Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also
fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I
brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict
between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals
that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't
be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related
proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or
deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen
simultaneously.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
>
> As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group members to
> submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on
> COB 06 September.   By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were
> submitted.
>
>
>
> In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September, the
> RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have reviewed
> the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows:
> Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other.  In addition, the
> proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated URS Topic
> Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational
> Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the presentations in the
> following order, organized by URS topic:
>
>
>
> Operational Fixes;
> Policy Recommendations;
> Other proposals.
>
>
>
> The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is subject
> to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
>
>
>
> To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to ensure that
> the same Working Group member is not making more than two (2) proposals per
> meeting.
> When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a
> maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and
> supporting evidence.
> The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the
> proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion
> limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high
> interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the
> discussion time.
> At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in
> queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or
> propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion.
> After the presentation:
>
> Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as attendance,
> chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff shall post to the
> email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals.
> All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals on the
> Working Group email list.
>
>
>
> In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive advance
> notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for presentation to
> ensure they will be available. Proponents will be permitted to request an
> alternate date if they have a conflict. Also, as requested, proponents will
> be able to designate an alternate to present on their behalf if they are
> unable to present at any of the available meetings.
>
>
>
> The Co-Chairs would like to re-emphasize that the Working Group faces a
> significant challenge in adhering to its current timeline and completing its
> URS work for the Initial Report before ICANN63. Consequently, the Co-Chairs
> also propose expediting the handling of the 33 proposals to keep to the
> Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
>
>
>
> Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as Phase 2
> items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be listed in the
> Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration, and that they will be
> brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a manner consistent with any
> procedures for consideration of WG member proposals adopted for Phase 2.  To
> be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for
> preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future
> Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work.
> Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2 items
> will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach.
> Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of all
> items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG members are
> already making through their participation in WG meetings and will only
> utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
>
>
>
> Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual URS
> Proposals and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff
> have reorganized the wiki page and renamed the document files to reflect the
> order of the individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative
> presentation date of each proposal is included, subject to change depending
> on actual progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase
> 2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these
> proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by clicking
> the “Quick Download” tab.
>
>
>
> As noted previously, the Co-Chairs believe that these procedures will
> efficiently and fairly 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 September and October, beginning on
> Monday, 17 September.
>
>
>
> Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting on 12
> September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested draft
> policy recommendations.  Working Group members who have submitted proposals
> similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to
> hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled
> presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that
> of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits
> adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a
> related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included
> in the Initial Report for public comment.
>
>
>
> 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