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

Fri Jun 26 15:46:17 UTC 2020

Claudio:

Thank you for your input.

URS Individual Proposal #6 seems quite clear, with little room to misunderstand its intent and purpose—

URS Individual Proposal #6

The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated Complainants to bring a single Complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS Procedure:

"One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related.” (emphasis added)

About 30% of the 55 individuals/entities that provided public comments did not do so on this proposal. Of the 70% that did comment, about 45% opposed and about 25% supported in some fashion, about a 2-1 ratio of opposition to support (I realize that we don’t count these comments as if they are votes, and that we also consider where entities speak for multiple individuals and/or companies – but still, the proposal appears to lack broad support while garnering substantial opposition) . WIPO expressed significant concern; Com Laude and MARQUES opposed outright; and, as you noted, individuals strongly identified with trademark rights advocacy opined that the proposal should go no further during the full WG discussion that you missed.

Personally, I do not see the slightest scintilla of a prospect that this proposal as framed can gain consensus support in our coming consensus call; and the procedure we are now operating under is designed to identify those proposals which can go to that call without change, those which may clear the hurdle if proponents can come back with significant changes that take community and WG member views into account, and those that have no prospect of gaining consensus even with modifications and  should not take any more of the WG’s limited time between now and our mid-September/October target date. This proposal clearly fell into the third category.

In your email you state, “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.” I would agree completely that WG members who are strongly for or against a proposal should strive to participate in the meeting that discusses it, and that is why we give substantial advance notice of which proposals are scheduled for discussion, and then send reminders with the same information as the meeting approaches.

If you believe that there is some way in which this proposal to let multiple unrelated complainants bring a single joint complaint against a single registrant can be revised in a manner to achieve that purpose and have a substantial prospect of gaining consensus support within the WG I invite you to share such revision for consideration. Short of that, in the opinion of this co-chair Proposal 6 is DOA and will not be discussed further per the decision agreed to by WG members on the call in which it was discussed.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:19 AM
To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

Claudio, thanks for your email.

All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about:  https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Individual+Proposal+%236<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1IkSoeYzRg6yqq6TErYGKUl5isAlETMCrSMQxARc704XEimSOM95epvciw6Hcf1R5D_CZiBgFv-Rfh9SXbJbC4TzDTbL7QiYROe-9syv1_pjI93Qg8is6SmVwO07BXhae1DspDOYFLLDlgCRjvSa2pSq4UlaGau4GU-zL6G8UWyrkpb0Qaz8MJYCyB8AC_qroaT3EpviXpJYMcJ8HEKZb42ZsDS-15eWmx7aVYK_206YlcDPn-vqSK_xF4MYg4af2QT6rT8v2DPQeHHWbdD0y6A/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2FURS%2BIndividual%2BProposal%2B%25236>

Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours.  However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal.  I assure you that I understand it.

Best,

Paul

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

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<mailto: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<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1YKmLSYneNE70gSOgCjl20_iNrE1zoaCjgAiOrHMeYh9lUh1o-zlR0ABEzeYFANFUd8aG1GL8z0pU6UThIUMLUfAY1ghIbwxCF92o5ZV6SHQQ3hRnEs5fld7fzLSRO8OGz6q6MeJ6iJ9c-wSVXG88aqGMluqmMrT-TpageeMrakr5bJOqKUgt-nLTQiiETl0O6bj2JW82cPjJesqU19TKH2czwFxlnBwLEnYkILuQDkd8zOCa2NDocbL878MzjEs7G0DIVTVxUtUf_TFABm2gTahuprc-3Oqly0YPEKdOtnA/https%3A%2F%2F68.schedule.icann.org%2Fmeetings%2F4h27u2A9rBqt8annP>
      * Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1HL2IMgGT-AJjLUzSoMDHGgboFoj-H2bD4EJur3eGlMQMyM6atEq3Pi9kIrGa9FG9ecOoI4qoNNIlRWcbar8-9zRO8PdK2wuzZFiEb1V1rrEbPh2XhmIaoQ0fV4MEKre35M9pnlmZHU4ZjMoWC3gPyBAg9tykG7IBbFbN4fLp747BfvSFbGBeKZEhScIdSIBL2bU9vU2vP9KVGVQZFNiZBJcGqcOjJXYJdcmVrXUFQsJ2GMvCxXAeD_axlKQvKq8nXMF-3mr7nfwSMOblT4J3Cw/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F9YBIC>

   *    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/20200626/7cb81d2c/attachment-0001.html>