[gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals

Corwin, Philip pcorwin at verisign.com
Tue Oct 9 11:38:07 UTC 2018


Paul:



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.



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.



When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations.



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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals



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.

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.

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?

Yours sincerely,


Paul.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181009/353e533d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list