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

[claudio di gangi]

All,

I want to apologize to Paul, Phil, and anyone else on the record that I may
have referenced in my recent emails. I think the tone/tenor of my messages
could have been a lot nicer and given people more of the benefit of the
doubt of terms of process-making decisions. I realized this after I sent
the messages.. I know no one is trying to silence debate, but my messages
may have come across as if I was inferring or implying that was the case.

Happy Sunday everyone!

Cheers,
Claudio

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:34 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>       - 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/20200628/69d2b1fb/attachment.html>