[GNSO-RPM-WG] Approaches to Further Review of Individual URS Proposals

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear RPMs PDP WG members,

On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, we are asking WG members to consider whether and how to revisit the individual URS proposals for further review.  As you may recall, the WG briefly reviewed individual URS proposals in the weeks prior to the ICANN meeting at ICANN63 in Barcelona, Spain in October 2018.  Then, during discussions over the course of two sessions at ICANN63, with some specific objections that insufficient attention had been given to the WG’s task of vetting the individual proposals, the WG broadly conceded that all 31 individual URS proposals<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ky5uajo8WDfY9x6lbtaEQhb0xXzKVlMSZKFQkHXDE9s/edit?usp=sharing> would be included in the Initial Report.  See specifically the discussions about how individual proposals and Sub Team proposals will be treated in the Initial Report by checking the following transcripts: 21 Oct 2018 (pp.21-42)<https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191827/1540260386.pdf?1540260386>, 22 Oct 2018 (pp.2-25)<https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/191831/1540260885.pdf?1540260885>.
Several weeks ago the WG Co-Chairs raised the question of whether the WG should revisit the individual URS proposals in some fashion in order to determine if the WG members still wish to include all 31 individual proposals or some subset of them in the Initial Report.  Now that the discussion of the open and deferred TMCH charter questions is nearing a conclusion, perhaps as soon as this week, taking a cue from WG members the Co-Chairs understand that the WG may wish to again consider this question of whether and how to further review the individual URS proposals with a view to forming recommendations or more refined proposals in the Initial Report (as e.g., was done with the TM Claims and Sunrise proposals) and is widely understood to be the primary function of a WG.

One possibility is for the WG to take a survey<https://forms.gle/kak3MEWFTNeq69wN9>, the purpose of which would be to "take the temperature of the room" and provide a snapshot of what URS individual proposals the WG membership believes may be able to  garner substantial agreement to  be a WG recommendation, or at least be more usefully refined to publish for public comment to gather community feedback.  It is important to emphasize that the survey would not be a formal vote and the results of the survey would not determine which proposals get included in the Initial Report, but would help inform the WG’s decision making based upon the overall levels of support and opposition to each proposal.

Participation in the survey would be optional, but could only be completed by current RPM WG members, who wish to reassess the URS individual proposals. Observers and non-members would not be permitted to participate in the survey. For transparency purposes, survey results would be published for the review by the WG.

Following the survey, the WG members could, e.g., over the course of  a few meetings, review the results and agree on the final determination as to which individual URS proposals would rise to the level of a recommendation or would at least have wide support for inclusion in the Initial Report for obtaining public comment.

Alternatively, WG members are welcome to suggest other options for further review of the individual URS proposals, to agree that all proposals will be included in the Initial Report (as was determined at ICANN63), or to agree that all proposals with a ”sufficient level of support/non-objection” (as determined by the WG in the next few weeks) will be included in the Initial Report.

The attached timeline and work plan indicate that the WG is currently scheduled to “Review all preliminary recommendations identified for inclusion in Initial Report (for URS, Sunrise, Claims, and TMCH)” at ICANN 66 in Montreal, Canada, at sessions tentatively planned for the afternoons of Saturday, November 2 and Sunday, November 3.  If the WG decides to utilize a survey or other editing approach and does not complete its work on individual URS proposals prior to Montreal it is the co-chairs’ intention to stick with the Montreal work plan and then wrap up the URS discussions later in November. In any event, if we include all 31 proposals in the
Initial Report we will need to review public comments on all and then decide which have or, with modifications, can garner consensus support for inclusion in the Final Report. If, on the other hand, we revisit the individual proposals now and include a smaller number in the Initial Report, it will allow the community to better focus its attention, and will leave us with fewer proposals and related public comments to consider for inclusion in the Final Report.

We welcome WG members’ comments and suggestions concerning this question and time permitting further discussion during the meeting on 10 October.

Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
On Behalf of Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, and Kathy Kleiman, RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191007/20726c9e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sunrise_Trademark Claims Sub Teams & Full WG Timeline - TM Claims Timeline.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 65530 bytes
Desc: Sunrise_Trademark Claims Sub Teams & Full WG Timeline - TM Claims Timeline.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20191007/20726c9e/Sunrise_TrademarkClaimsSubTeamsFullWGTimeline-TMClaimsTimeline-0001.pdf>