[gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and Materials for 17 Sept Working Group Meeting 1700 UTC

Fri Sep 14 19:16:09 UTC 2018

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,

On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes.  Note that due to the Yom Kippur holiday the meeting that would have been held on Wednesday, 19 September has been rescheduled to Monday.

Further to the message below and per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group will begin discussion of the Individual URS Proposals.  According to the timeline published on the wiki and as described in the message below, the order of the presentation is as follows.  WG members are requested to review the presentations prior to Monday’s meeting.  

Kristine Dorrain: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-1.pdf?api=v2
Maxim Alzoba: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-2.pdf?api=v2
Zak Muscovitch: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-3.pdf?api=v2
George Kirikos: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-4.pdf?api=v2
Claudio DiGangi: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-6.pdf?api=v2
David McAuley: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pdf?api=v2
Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.pdf?api=v2
Brian Winterfeldt’s team: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-11.pdf?api=v2

Per the procedure, please also note the following time requirements for the presentations:

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.

Depending on the actual progress during the Monday meeting, if a proposal cannot be presented due to time limitation, the presentation should be deferred to a future meeting.

Draft Agenda:
Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates
Discussion of Individual URS Proposals (See:  wiki)
AOB

Have a nice weekend!

Best,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180914/7af4d72d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180914/7af4d72d/smime-0001.p7s>