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

[claudio di gangi]

Phil,

Thanks for these helpful thoughts.

I wanted to put a marker down because I wasn’t on the call and the
decision-making obviously needs to be inclusive, utilize the list, etc. -
so that’s was the intend of the note last night. But yes, of course I can
provide further thinking to support my position on next steps.

>From my point of view, this proposal shouldn’t create an iota of
controversy, as it helps address an ongoing problem (the malicious bulk
registration of domains, including some used for DNS Abuse), it represents
an improvement over the status quo, and helps the URS serve it’s intended
purpose while helping all parties in the process save resources.

More specifically, to address the bad-faith registration of domains under a
very limited and specific fact pattern, the exact contours of which shall
be determined by the jurisprudence of the policy (in other words, the
panelist should have some limited discretion to hear the case and the
current rule should not be baked into the URS Procedures (preventing these
cases from ever being considered) - where it stands out like a sore thumb.

That’s all the proposal seeks to unwind - a rigid rule that is currently
hard-coded into the URS Procedures, and to provide the URS Providers
options to address these cases, where they feel appropriate, in a unified
manner when they occur (as similarly under the UDRP).

A hard-coded rule like the current rule baked into the URS Procedures,
restricting all and every “unrelated” complainant from ever bringing a
unified complaint - no matter what the factual circumstances of the case is
simply counter-logical and counter-productive.

The public comments reflect the URS Providers are open to the proposal (I
understand you quote WIPO, who is not a URS Provider), so I think we should
hear more from the URS Providers after changes are made to the proposal.

In practice, the proposal would apply to a very limited set of factual
circumstances (which is why I referenced Paul’s quote and the appearance of
his potential misunderstanding) and why this should be further discussed
and considered for WG adoption.

The proposal, as drafted now, is subject to broad over-interpretation and
misunderstanding - I believe this is reflected in some of the public
comments themselves.

It’s intended applicability is actually quite limited, but to an observer
that is not clear from the direct text of the proposal itself, hence the
need for revisions.

Also, I’m not sure if your summary of the public comments is your personal
summary, or something more formalized, but in either case, I think it
overstates the counting of the jelly beans and what inferences should be
drawn from that exercise.

The contracted party stakeholder groups do not oppose, as this can bring
potential efficiencies for them; the BC and IPC support, the URS Providers
appear open and other individual companies also support (in fact, more than
than the one company that you named that expressed some reservation.)

Please allow me some time and I can revert back with a deeper analysis of
the public comments, if needed, but I hope that is not necessary to move
things forward.

Based on the merits, this proposal should not be discarded out of hand;
some edits/changes can be made to bring much needed clarity, then it should
be discussed further by the WG at that time.

Cheers,
Claudio


On Friday, June 26, 2020, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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> *On Behalf Of *claudio
> di gangi
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM
> *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Cc:* 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> 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/ead87c86/attachment-0001.html>