To clarify, if a proposal applies to both the URS & UDRP (i.e. can be handled in Phase 2 of our work; e.g. publishing URS/UDRP decisions in XML format, as a concrete proposal), do those topics still need to be submitted now? Or, should those proposals be held back to only be submitted during the Phase 2 process? By holding them back, there will be fewer presentations in this Phase 1, thereby reducing the workload in this Phase 1. If we can get a definitive answer on this ASAP, that would be of great assistance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Per the action items 1 and 2 below, please see the updated document, Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations. WG members are requested to review the document and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list.
Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 4:20 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 22 August 2018
Dear All,
Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 22 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-08-22+Review+of+all+Ri....
Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
==
ACTIONS:
ACTION ITEM 1: Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations -- Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text.
ACTION ITEM 2: WG members to review the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations and send any comments, questions, or suggested changes to the WG list.
NOTES:
1. Review Agenda/SOIs:
-- New EFF representative Mitch replacing Jeremy.
2. Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations):
1) Review of Proposals from URS Sub Teams:
-- Contact Sub Teams if you have questions (Staff can provide names).
2) Logistical requirements for proposal submission from individual Working Group members:
-- Send your proposals via the online survey form or the Word doc or they won't be in order.
-- Deadline is 31 August for proposals.
-- Question: If someone has already submitted a proposal they need to resubmit using the form? Answer: Yes, it is very doubtful that anyone has submitted a proposal in a form that we are going to be requiring.
-- Question: Can we get a record of what we have sent and to whom do we send proposals if we use the Word form? Answer: SurveyMonkey will capture the submission that staff will send to the list and individuals as PDF. Send Word forms to Ariel Liang on staff at: ariel.liang@icann.org,
-- Question: Can we extend the deadline to 05 or 12 September for submissions? Answer: We have a very tight timeline. We will keep it at the 31st but if there is a lot of push back we may consider pushing back to early the following week.
3) Content requirements for proposals:
-- Question: Should the Sub Teams have to answer these questions for their own proposals? Or can the individuals have more time? Answer: The Sub Teams have been working over a long period of time and as a group have come up with draft recommendations, and these will need more discussion. They don't need the same level of detail.
4) Administrative review of proposals:
-- Staff will review the proposals and identify those that don't meet the criteria.
5) Meeting Duration:
6) Presentation of Proposals:
-- This is all happening over a pretty short time period. The time zone issue also can be significant, so it is better if the proponents can be on the call to present. If not, we should be able to designate an alternate. This proposal will be considered by the Co-Chairs.
-- Might need to schedule more meetings.
-- Concern that if many people wish to express their views and you only hear from one perspective then that could be an issue.
-- Also doesn't seem to allow for engaging in a debate via email since the poll is initiated right after the call.
-- Could allow less time for
-- Before presentation, encourage WG members to propose questions for the proponents and post on mailing list
-- Instead of 2 min response to questions, 3-4 min for proponents to respond would be more effective
-- Each proposal needs to be under 30 min total for the presentation and discussion
-- Want a diversity of people for presenting. Need to decide which proposals have significant support to go into the Initial Report.
-- It would be ideal to have a diversity of SGs and Cs supporting a proposal -- support across the WG.
-- The poll should be transparent with names attached.
-- After the presentations, the proponent should be permitted to elaborate after the presentation via email, and start the poll a few days later.
-- Concerns about "significant support" -- there should be a predetermined level and applies equally.
-- All the URS Sub Team proposals should go through the same poll.
-- The bias is towards inclusion.
7) Co-Chair's review of proposals:
-- This is not the consensus call process.
-- The point of the Initial Report is to get feedback from the community.
-- Question: One of the problems we had in the IGO/INGO group was the perception where those leading the working group supported a matter silence was treated as tacit support, when those leading the working group were against a matter silence was treated a implicit objection. Could this happen here?
-- Page 4: Second bullet point, that Sub Team recommendations will be included as a WG recommendation -- but individual member proposals are excluded by default. But Sub Team recommendations are reviewed by the plenary.
-- Sub Team recommendations are already the result of work of WG members.
-- Page 4: There is some non-parallel drafting in the second and third bullet points. Seems to suggest that these won't be treated equally.
-- Sub Team recommendations in the end will have no advantage over individual recommendations in the Final Report. It is not the intent to give greater weight to Sub Team recommendations.
ACTION ITEM: Edit the second bullet on page 4. Put a period after "initial report". Delete the rest of the text.
Submission Form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/URSProposal
-- Urging the WG members to use the online form.
-- Whether they are going to be in the Final Report as a consensus recommendations is a separate point. Whether a proposal is WG or individual will not determine what is in the Final Report.
3. Begin consideration of the sub team recommendations, under the proposed framework (see attached Super Consolidated URS Topics Table – with Findings, Issues, and Suggestions from all Three URS Sub Teams for Working Group Discussion) – postponed to the next meeting.
4. Next meeting: Asia Pacific Time for the last meeting of the month -- Wednesday, 29 August at 1200 UTC.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg