The proposed procedure is a work in progress and will not be made final until after WG discussion and feedback on tomorrow’s call, as well as on the email list for a day or two after – we want WG members to understand and feel comfortable with this proposed procedural path forward before it is implemented.

Our intent is to have a fair, efficient and uniform procedure that provides the same format and structure for the consideration of all WG proposals, and the same criteria for inclusion in the Initial report for public comment. We have no intent to discriminate against any specific proposal or WG member.

This procedural proposal is biased toward the inclusion of proposals in the Initial Report (IR) for the purpose of soliciting public comment from the broader community. In other words, if a proposal has substantial support within the WG it will be included in the IR even if it also elicits substantial opposition – all wisdom does not reside within our ranks, and a community commenter may well provide a suggestion for compromise that narrows the gap in views. (On the other hand, the consensus call process for the Final Report will be quite different, as only proposals that have achieved Full Consensus, or Consensus, within the WG will go forward to Council, while those that continue to attract both substantial support and opposition will be categorized as having divergence and will go by the wayside unless the opposing sides reach compromise.)

Addressing your concerns (and the other co-chairs may well have additional views they wish to share):

It is intended that, for those proposals for which a poll after WG call discussion is utilized to determine whether substantial support exists, the results shall be transparent – that the names of participants and the position taken shall be published.
There is a starting presumption that recommendations emerging from a sub-team already possess substantial support because they were collectively developed and agreed upon by multiple WG members from varied interests and therefore should be included in the IR for comment, especially since the bias of this process is toward inclusion. My personal view is that a sub-team recommendation should be included even if there is substantial opposition, and should be excluded and merely documented/referenced only if full WG discussion reveals that it enjoys no support outside the sub-team membership and also incites substantial opposition. In any event, when a sub-team recommendation elicits substantial opposition it will be the subject of a poll to determine overall WG support/opposition.

There is no presumption that substantial support already exists for a new proposal coming from an individual WG member because it comes from a single person rather than a team. That said, if it receives substantial support from other WG members it will be included in the IR for comment, even if it also generates substantial opposition.

So I personally believe that what you characterize as a “double standard” is actually just a recognition that sub-team recommendations have been collectively developed and already achieved support from multiple members of the WG, while proposals from individual members have yet to be vetted. But this is open for discussion tomorrow.

Finally, on the subject of setting an objective measure for the determination of whether substantial support or opposition exists for a particular proposal, that is difficult to do in advance as different proposals may attract significantly varying volumes of oral comment or poll participation, as well as because the GNSO WG Guidelines do not permit voting. That said, the co-chairs are committed to acting in a transparent and uniform manner in regard to all proposals, and to articulating the basis for any determination that a proposal does or does not have substantial support (which is the key criteria, given that once that exists a proposal will be included in the IR for comment even if substantial opposition also exists).

I hope that you and other members of the WG find my response to be helpful and I look forward to our discussion on tomorrow’s call.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 2:51 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations; Draft Agenda for 22 Aug Call

Hi folks,,

At this time, I have 2 concerns with the Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations.

1. On page 3, the use of a poll is mentioned. In keeping with ICANN's transparency requirements, that poll should not be an anonymous poll.

2. On page 4, there's a double-standard in the default treatment of Sub Team Recommendations vs. Working Group member submissions, and that double-standard should be eliminated, as there was no deference to the work of the sub teams.

In particular, Sub Team recommendations are included by default "unless there is substantial opposition".

On the other hand, Working Group member submissions are *excluded* by default, unless there is substantial support.

The standard for inclusion should be made identical for all proposals, regardless of where they originated.

Also, the standard should be objectively stated *prior* to measurement, to ensure that a "substantial support" or "substantial opposition" (whichever uniform standard ultimately applies) is not determined in an ad hoc manner.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members

> On behalf of the Co-Chairs, the attached document is a proposal that

> the Co-Chairs hope will facilitate the RPM PDP Working Group

> discussion and development of URS policy and operational

> recommendations over the course of the upcoming Working Group meetings

> in August and September, beginning with our next meeting.

> The Working Group faces a significant challenge in adhering to its

> current timeline and completing its URS work for the Initial Report by

> the end of September. It is therefore imperative that the Working

> Group agrees on tight procedures that provide a fair opportunity for

> all members to propose operational and policy modifications to the

> URS. In addition, the procedures should facilitate identification of

> those proposals that lack significant support and thus may be deferred

> to the Initial Report for public comment, or to Phase Two of the WG’s

> efforts because they are substantially intertwined with UDRP issues.

> In addition to the proposal, please also review the online survey form

> for WG members to submit proposals. Upon request, staff can also

> provide a .doc version of the online survey form to WG members who

> have difficulty accessing the online survey.

> Please review the proposal and come prepared to discuss them at the

> meeting on Wednesday, 22 August, at 17:00 UTC. Here also is a draft

> agenda for your

> review:

> Draft Working Group Agenda:

> Review Agenda/SOIs

> Discussion of Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational

> Recommendations (see attached Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and

> Operational Recommendations) 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)

> AOB

> Best,

> Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry

> On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs

> _______________________________________________

> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg