[gnso-rpm-wg] Thoughts on my proposal re URS default reviews

[McAuley, David]

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG:



Yesterday I presented a proposal<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-9.pdf?api=v2> to this WG in my personal capacity that addressed the timing and number of examinations in those cases where a URS respondent 'defaulted.'



Thanks again to the co-chairs for a well-designed process for submitting/weighing these proposals, and to staff for implementing the process so efficiently.



Some asked during this presentation if I would be willing to tweak/adjust the proposal to better suit a request for public comment in light of the comments, both pro and con, being made as I spoke.



My answer would be yes. However, prior to looking over the record and taking such steps I want to note to the WG that it seems advisable to wait until a similar proposal is aired, proposal #15<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-10.pdf?api=v2> from Brain Winterfeldt et al.   It appears to be first up in the next teleconference.



By considering these together, the co-chairs may have a better insight into whether they should be considered separately or combined.



Best regards,



David



David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180918/e68cea51/attachment.html>