[GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] Re: Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 11 December at *18:00-19:30 UTC*
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Wed Dec 11 17:49:55 UTC 2019
Tx you, Julie!
On 12/11/2019 12:42 PM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
> Dear Kathy and WG members,
>
> Please see the attached slides that will be referenced during the
> meeting for the individual URS proposals. Please see the links to the
> full proposals at:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/120820471/URS%20Individual%20Proposal%20Survey%20Result.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1576085865553&api=v2.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> *From: *Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, December 11, 2019 at 12:38 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on
> Wednesday, 11 December at *18:00-19:30 UTC*
>
> Julie, could you kindly share the link to where the WG would find the
> full text of the original URS Proposals, should we wish to review them
> in their entirely?
>
> Tx, Kathy
>
> On 12/10/2019 11:49 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
>
> Dear RPM WG members,
>
> Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting
> on *Wednesday, 11 December at 18:00-19:30 UTC*.
>
> Draft Proposed Agenda:
>
> 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
> 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the
> recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial
> Report – */Review new text per the action items (pages 10, 15,
> and 20) below and as redlined in the Google doc at/*:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h-5F9oOE1vFYm9o_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=LzctM0rawa82n14qJG4fmjxA8igM6MyEtXCI4D6vCF0&s=UA8l-od22Drq8lVZlR-5LeB_Rm9Xf1rvFU3sn_5chaM&e=>
>
> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached
> survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the
> proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36,
> 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14,
> 13, 17, 16.
> 4. AOB
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
> *Actions from 04 December Meeting:*
>
> *Page 10 (bottom of page): *F. REMEDIES* - *2. Duration of
> suspension period; 3. Review of implementation, *POLICY
> RECOMMENDATION *(Providers ST):
>
> ACTION: Staff to provide revised text for WG review. See: “The
> Providers Sub Team discovered issues with respect to implementing
> the outcomes of a URS proceeding (e.g. relief awarded following a
> URS decision, or where the parties settle the case prior to
> Determination and a transfer at the registrar level is required,
> or where a Complainant’s requests to extend a suspension.”
>
> *Page 15 (top of the page):* F. REMEDIES* - *4. Other topics:
>
> ACTIONS:
>
> 1) Add a bullet: “What would need to be done to help resolve the
> issues you have encountered?”
>
> 2) Note in the table that the following text should be added as a
> footnote in the Initial Report and vet by GDD (done). Also, in the
> initial report provide the context for why this remedy is relevant
> to a URS suspension: “HSTS preloading is a function built into the
> browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS
> ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has
> to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP. The
> aforementioned remedy is to suspend the HSTS preloading function
> of a domain name.”
>
> *Page 20 (bottom of the page):* J. LANGUAGE**ISSUES*- *1. Language
> issues, including current requirements for complaint, notice of
> complaint, response, determination
>
> ACTION ITEM: Rewrite the text to avoid the use of the term
> “privacy shield”. See: “Such guidance should take into account
> the fact that domains subject to a URS complaint may have been
> registered via a privacy or proxy service.”
>
> 3. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the
> December meetings:
>
> * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order -
> begin with a proposal that received the highest level of
> support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a
> proposal that received the lowest level of support for
> inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest
> level of support for inclusion, followed by one that
> received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth,
> until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this
> procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1,
> 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19,
> 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16.
> * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had
> indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished
> to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual
> Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no
> more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions
> and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer
> and two inputs per member).
> * Members are kindly requested not to rehash
> arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions
> and answers very brief.
>
> * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with
> wide support and virtually no opposition will be
> considered as recommendations by the WG.
> * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be
> published for comment in the Initial Report as individual
> URS Proposals.
> * Proposals with virtually no support and significant
> opposition will not be published in the Initial Report.
>
> * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS
> proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working
> Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines,
> the Working Group leadership team will determine whether
> there is sufficient support from other Working Group
> members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where
> one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for
> purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific
> individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals
> only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual
> proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all
> be referenced in the report, with links provided to the
> actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s
> deliberations).
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
>
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dZelTZoMphOm9d1z214v8tLT1K0Y7xoU-zXQheJZnys&s=n-z-yhSXAJq0lZrlgwOQv1iW355Uz-48fEFvzW-uC0o&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=dZelTZoMphOm9d1z214v8tLT1K0Y7xoU-zXQheJZnys&s=s0IjQj7NJkIXdEJZiNeua7am9pedhNWbV_9zzAR-qHE&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191211/42afa188/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG
mailing list