[gnso-rpm-wg] Phase 1 vs Phase 2 proposals/topics (was Re: UPDATE: Agenda and Materials for 26 Sept Working Group Meeting 1200 UTC)

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

I notice that 2 of the proposals scheduled for today's call (#15 and
#22, additional penalties for repeat offenders + loser pays) were ones
I identified on September 11, 2018 as being more appropriate for Phase
2 discussions, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003315.html

and the ensuing thread. On our last call, Phil Corwin stated:

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-rpm-review-17sep18-en.pdf

"And then those of you who saw on the list last week, George Kirikos
raised a question regarding the distinction between Phase 1 and Phase
2 proposals and the chairs are going to put out a statement on that in
the next day or two that can be discussed on the list before the next
meeting. But we haven't had a chance to put that out yet but the few
proposals that George identified that he thought would be more
properly addressed in Phase 2 also were not called up, although I
think the first one would have been Number 14, which would not have
been reached today anyway. But we’re going to have a statement out on
that in the next few days." (page 2)

However, no such statement has been put out by the co-chairs since
that last call.

Since we only have 2 minutes to respond to each proposal during
today's call, I'd like to reiterate my objection to having these
proposals be presented at this time, unless it's agreed in advance
that these same topics are going to be completely barred from
consideration in relation to the UDRP.

It's clear to me that these same topics are intended to be raised
again for the UDRP (indeed, the rationale for proposal #22 "loser
pays" explicitly references the UDRP). They shouldn't get two bites at
the apple, so to speak.

One of the main justifications for splitting the work into Phase 1 and
Phase 2 was to avoid duplication, and having these proposals presented
and considered now makes a mockery of that.

Should the proposals above be allowed to proceed to the presentation
stage now, despite their relevance to the UDRP and Phase 2, then
various counterbalancing proposals to protect registrants' rights and
due process that I submitted and explicitly labelled as being more
suitable for Phase 2 (since they apply to both the URS and UDRP)
should be given equal time in Phase 1 presentations to be considered
with and alongside the above proposals.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the draft agenda below for the
> Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 26 September at 1200 UTC (NOTE ROTATING
> TIME) for 120 minutes.
>
>
>
> Per Co-Chairs’ Proposed Procedure, for this next meeting, the Working Group
> will continue 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 Wednesday’s meeting.  Staff would like to provide
> you a heads-up that the order of presentations tomorrow would be slightly
> adjusted as follows:
>
>
>
> 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
> George Kirikos:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-24.pdf?api=v2
> Zak Muscovitch:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-25.pdf?api=v2
> Brian Winterfeldt’s team:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-15.pdf?api=v2
> Brian Winterfeldt’s team:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-16.pdf?api=v2
> Brian Winterfeldt’s team:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS-Proposal-22.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 Wednesday 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
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
>
> On Behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg