[gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals

[Greg Shatan]

Without commenting at length on the IGO/INGO WG, it seems that a viewing of
“Rashomon” would be in order.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:58 AM Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Without commenting on any specific proposal, as we near the end of their
> review the co-chairs will be consulting with staff and will report back to
> the WG, for its consideration, as to which proposals have demonstrated
> adequate support and will be included in the IR for public comment, and
> which have not yet done so.
>
>
>
> 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:* Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 8:56 AM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory
> proposals
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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>
>
> 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.
>
> #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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> We really should learn from what happened in the IGO/INGO WG, we don’t
> want a similar disaster here.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181009/24e100df/attachment.html>