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

Wed Sep 26 16:35:29 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

Just to followup on this Phase 1 vs Phase 2 topic, it was was
discussed at the beginning of today's call, and apparently it was
decided that "Anyone has the opportunity to recategorize their
proposals by COB Friday, 28 Sept." (i.e. categorized from Phase 2 back
into Phase 1) and that no one would be precluded from putting into
Phase 1 a URS proposal that would also be made later on for the UDRP
(e.g. loser pays).

As I said during the call, I don't agree that that's the right
approach, as it basically doubles the workload, i.e. the same
proposals that are being made for the URS will be debated again for
the UDRP in Phase 2. The folks who have submitted topics into Phase 1
that belong in Phase 2 due to their applicability to both the URS and
UDRP should have deferred them like I initially did, to avoid that
duplication.

But, as that appears to be the will of the working group, I hereby
recategorize the 11 proposals I previously made that could have been
deferred to Phase 2 as instead being applicable for consideration in
Phase 1 also, so that the public can comment on them in our initial
draft report.

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals

[The other 3 proposals I submitted, of the 14 in total, were strictly
for the URS]

Let me know if I should adjust the text of those 11 proposals (didn't
want to jump the gun and resubmit them, lest folks think I modified
the essence of the proposals). The only practical "difference" would
be that the proposal would be to limit the policy change to the URS
first (and then we'll debate the issue all over again in Phase 2, to
change the UDRP policy in the exact same manner later!), so the
presentation doesn't really depend on any modified text.

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 5:44 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg