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

Fri Jun 26 21:13:38 UTC 2020

Claudio:

“Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here.”

That is not correct. Unlike the WG recommendations in the Initial Report, which had broad support and minimal opposition, the individual proposals did not have WG backing, and were put out for comment to gauge community support/opposition and whether they should go forward, in initial or revised form, for consensus call consideration. My personal presumption was that the great majority of individual proposals would not move forward, and I have actually been surprised that after comment review some number will or may get further consideration.

But that is not the case for URS #6, as there was broad agreement after review of community input that it had no realistic chance to garner consensus support. As I stated in my earlier email today, “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 claudio di gangi
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:35 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
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

Paul,

Actually, I believe you have things backwards here. The default operating procedure is to promote more inclusion, not less and not exclude members from decision-making because they missed a phone call or a meeting. That’s why we have the list and the open and inclusive operating procedures.

Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here.

Finally, I didn’t assert that you misunderstood the proposal, merely that it appeared to me that you did based on your summary statement. We can get into the merits at a later stage, but I hope no offense was taken, as none was intended - I know you are very smart guy!

Cheers,

Claudio

On Friday, June 26, 2020, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>> wrote:

   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/1lYs_kXykg5dqAYwhfAcnznIQ8YqmbHOe5b7Eqqq5SqJuXh-2yH9X9DPg30IEHLKHU0_S2TuUR-4ScuGRU1heNKOGoLhFkZDA-lzYOtFxey_P_BY3U2jTQFS9q-ixD5KVPlp5dp7OkVpW8NstQrddtVgFMBW_mN-ckuehl9OZ3QjbQFiejFGnWoK_GzSj7l1wLkKlObEAqJCvju7MrhRnfUiw1_dXyvfJqbQ1LmfBtPqwvy-deJscN6UO-dCGs7i4YwWmUenGEAbxSIjxhMDOyw/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/1hAxjVWDW16z7HCPA-IWN8C4xuMEuUoVL7cbOPEPWIdSW5tk6IokvV_xGrpF6m-d36j8RlHB784PAMmm9yqYRRQonlhIIRzGCuN8_Wj7PLcHR2DqazlLFos1IQ-EWPp-5049CUMJnHpPGTVhb1afcVweeyu8qKTKAK51RAM3icsjFrSk8kN-0XxmGSYw8sRr7bn3r6pUq3zQxVdlXWuEz8Ew31Lq8F_9y_UOJ55GfH3ZCoQb6zqVw2z-tJjmVebYkmK8453XDDgEm1ij5zqDoSaaqFwemF912tWGeS0KQBZI/https%3A%2F%2F68.schedule.icann.org%2Fmeetings%2F4h27u2A9rBqt8annP>
         *      Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ujFn4O60g6BlFlEKQGIGGxL5RHVLVLCkiVaELqIlC5FE3llxfQn7Cos9CXO86MaSCxMT8--rT2jrOniXJOORiIv_6_pZMqK7aG3G3nye4CroyZlOK0v_AVlMmpd_j8M5Wvl-l6XoXlhePeb6NGxUCJR6hbNVeAPW0i3UrnK43DPDUyAL8HzmPjSuzoMQND4RG6ynDxvRlOXOCmtWfHfCykKa2gt9qMOpj-2rBKnShM_j4BytucfKLkqwDsDacktd1P4ckEbAgOSfF27t_4nUrA/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/20200626/6716e87c/attachment-0001.html>