<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Thank
you for the reply Phillip, but it doesn’t really seem to provide a clear mechanism
for improving or removing obviously flawed proposals prior to the initial
report. This is incredibly important as it will remove obviously flawed
proposals prior to any public consultation and save a great deal of work. <br>
<br>
This may be better illustrated with an example: #3 requires … <i>“proposals
to be substantially specific and not general in nature. One proposal for one recommendation
only.”</i><br>
<br>
Proposal #22 for example is very vague as it may be targeted at all respondents
or it may be targeted at a handful of repeat offenders. If we look at any
population the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding and only a small
percentage of the population play at the edge or break the rules. And of that small
number who break the rules only a very small percentage of those do so habitually.<br>
<br>
#22 is very bad, because it uses the behaviour of a small minority of miscreants
as a justification to skew the framework to the advantage of a specific interest
group over the whole of their target group. <br>
<br>
Further the verbal rationale on the call was also shockingly bad and as such also needs to
be formally addressed if #22 is going to proceed much further.<br>
<br>
Clearly part of, one call, attended by a small subset of working group members is
not sufficient to identify flawed proposals. We need a formal mechanism to weed
out these sorts of proposals as early as possible otherwise we will waste a
great deal of time on them simply as a result of them progressing further. <br>
<br>
We really should learn from what happened in the IGO/INGO WG, we don’t want a
similar disaster here.<br>
<br>
</span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="m_-3919676831485400750WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_-3919676831485400750__MailEndCompose">Paul:<u></u><u></u></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The co-chairs already promulgated and the WG already accepted the standard that any individual WG member that demonstrated “adequate support” would be include in the IR for the purpose of soliciting
public WG. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>What I stated on the call you missed was a personal view that any proposal submitted by a trade association with broad breadth of membership – whether INTA or ICA – likely meets that standard.
Some agreed, others did not.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Philip<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<u></u><u></u></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will
unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry
Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report.<br>
<br>
If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its
time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error.<br>
<br>
So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report?<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>