[gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
Corwin, Philip
pcorwin at verisign.com
Tue Sep 11 21:31:31 UTC 2018
George:
The co-chairs will certainly take your views into account on this, and discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur when it is brought up for discussion. The same view can also be expressed by any party filing a comment on the Initial Report. And if any significant portion of the WG has that view, the proposal will likely not achieve the consensus support to become a Phase 1 recommendation.
However, to clarify, this statement -- "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." -- refers to phase 2 UDRP proposals. We thought that was implicit but now it is explicit.
It is therefore not at odds with our prior statement that " 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".
I hope that clarifies matters.
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 5:18 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180911/00c08db7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list