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

[claudio di gangi]

Phil,

Just to clarify, my statement to Paul (which you quoted in your reply) was
to express the notion that final conclusions were not reached based on who
was able to join the last meeting.

What percentage of WG members joined that meeting (I honestly don’t know);
if a meaningful number where not able to participate, that needs to be
taken into consideration when assessing the level of consensus.

The WG Guidelines promote an open and inclusive process, so any WG member
who wants to make comments on the list are encouraged to make them so the
views of the full WG are incorporated. Those comments are to be considered,
on subsequent calls, on equal footing with any comments made during a prior
meeting.

In other words, my point was the issue is not closed and shouldn’t be
closed until everyone is able to weigh in. But just as importantly, until
my comments (as the proponent) are weighed in their proper context, which
is especially important here where the proposal was not fully understood or
appreciated.

As I noted, I could have clarified a lot of this misinformation had I been
able to join the prior meeting (I have not yet reviewed the entire
transcript, which I can do so later if need be).

Finally, as I previously expressed, I disagree with how the discussion on
Proposal 6 was teed up by presenting the results of the public comments
disfavorably in a quantitative 2-1 analysis “against”.

I’m not sure if this was based on the staff, the subteam work product,
personal comments, or some combination thereof, but either way I disagree
with this straightforward description or assessment of the public comments.

So while I’m left confused as to who calculated the
“2–1” number, and why it was presented that way, it is not as important to
me at the moment. Putting the numbers aside, it’s more important to read
what the comments actually say, and whether solutions can be developed to
address the stated concerns. Some comments expressed flat-out opposition,
but many did not, and that’s my point.

This is a good example of where, on certain topics, public comments are
more nuanced. And generally speaking they should be considered
qualitatively and on the merits.

For example, some commentators selected “Do No Support” but then provided
comments reflecting openness to the idea if certain conditions are
satisfied, or expressed concerns that I would describe as conditional, and
then indicated “Significant Change Required” in order to reach the level of
agreement.

Moreover, since some comments are based on a small, but important,
misunderstanding of the proposal, for that reason alone, I think
Significant Change Required can be achieved to meet some of the expressed
concerns (at least for some of the commenters) along with other reasons.
And there were plenty of comments in support from major stakeholders groups
representing large numbers of members. That’s why I believe the level of
opposition (as described in the public comments) was overstated or
misstated. That, of course, is going to influence the WG discussion that
takes place after that assessment is made. But what’s done is done.

I believe you are saying at least something similar when you invited my
open comments on why this topic should remain open for the time being, so I
very much appreciate that gesture. I don’t want to digress too much, just
wanted to clarify certain points.

Cheers,
Claudio

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

> 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
> <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 *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> 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> *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/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/20200627/95470865/attachment-0001.html>