[GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

[claudio di gangi]

Hi all,

I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for
potential preservation for further WG consideration.

>From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments
as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a
major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that
folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is
actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the
proposal).

I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my
personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by
Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a
rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in
contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by
the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments
made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments
(which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based
on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori
along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast,
the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous
INTA recommendation).

As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent
isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to
skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so.

In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the
confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave
this item open for further review.

Cheers,
Claudio

On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Please find a public comment analysis document which
> encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public
> comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
> 1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing  The
> updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and
> #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17.
>
>
>
> *Brief introduction:*
>
>    - This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s
>    transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each
>    meeting.
>       - Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/
>       meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP
>       - Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC
>    - Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow
>    box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent.
>    - Under each proposal, there are two sections:
>
> 1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary:
>
>    - “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the
>       current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action
>       item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal.
>       - If the WG decides *not* to preserve the proposal for further
>       deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final
>       Deliberation Summary”.
>
> 2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If
> Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an
> individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation.
>
>
>
> The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide
> input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing
> content on list.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200626/f526a0e3/attachment.html>