Hi Julie thanks for this.  I think the order for review may be the wrong way round – or I have misunderstood the graph, which is also possible. 

Isn’t #2 the highest level of support, and #23 the lowest, etc etc?  The graph on page 4 of the slide deck is of respondents who said “no don’t publish”, so the 90% level on #23 is for not including in the report.

 

 

 

Dear RPM WG members, 

  

Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 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, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing
3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below.  The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16.
4. AOB

 

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

 

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: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 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).