Dear Co-chairs On the last call I proposed that we allow for a proposal to be presented for discussion by an alternate, if the circumstances are such that the proposer cannot make any of the proposed dates but they are able to find someone else willing to shepherd the proposal on their behalf. I note that the intention is to give a proposer flexibility to request a meeting slot that suits them, and so it is to be hoped that a proposer would rarely, if ever, need to take advantage of an alternate, but it would really unfortunate to exclude a proposal which someone else was willing to support because, for circumstances which might be beyond their control, a suitable slot cannot be found for the proposer. This would probably fit within the document within the first bullet of section 6. This did not seem to be viewed as controversial when I raised it on the call, and indeed there was some support. Can you please explain why this has not been included? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 29 August 2018 00:13 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Revised Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations Dear RPM PDP Working Group members On behalf of the Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised Proposed Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations. As noted previously, the Co-Chairs believe that these procedures will efficiently and fairly 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 September, beginning with our next meeting. Please note that the deadline for submission of member proposals for URS operational and policy modifications has been extended to COB on Thursday, September 6th. The Co-Chairs have fully discussed and considered the comments on the initial version of the Proposed Procedures. As a result, the attached revised document, with changes in redline, includes the following changes from the version initially sent on 21 August, and revised per the Working Group discussion at the meeting on 22 August: * Section 1, bullet 1: Add the sentence, “The WG will be working off from the “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table” for the review of the URS Sub Teams’ operational and policy proposals.” * Section 1, bullet 2: Date for commencement of staff presentations of Sub Team proposals changed to August 29. * Section 2, bullet 1: Clarification that the WG will be addressing Sub team “operational and policy” proposals. * Section 2, bullet 6: Change the deadline for proposal submissions from COB Friday, 31 August to COB Thursday, 06 September so that the Co-Chairs will begin to consider proposals at their weekly meeting on Friday, 07 September. * Section 3, new bullet 4: Added a procedure to address Phase 2 proposals. * Section 6: * Change “significant support” to “adequate” (meaning support from Working Group members that in the Co-Chairs’ judgment is of a level for which public comments should be sought via the Initial Report) throughout. * Under the heading “During the presentation”: * Bullet 3: add “However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time.” * Bullet 4: change “two (2) minutes” to “four (4) minutes” to allow individual proposers more time to respond to comments. * Section 7: * Change “significant support” to “adequate support” throughout. * Bullet 1: add “the Co-Chairs may suggest for WG consideration a consolidated proposal that includes elements of the multiple related proposals.” * Bullet 2: change “substantial opposition” to “substantial material opposition” and after “Initial Report” add, “for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon.” Additional language also clarifies that Sub Team proposals only enjoy a rebuttable presumption of adequate support for inclusion in the Initial Report to solicit community input, but no advantage over individual proposals for inclusion as Final Report recommendations. The Co-Chairs would like to re-emphasize that 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 an adequate level of support as well as those that may be deferred to Phase Two of the Working Group’s efforts because they are substantially intertwined with UDRP issues. The Co-Chairs note that there have been questions raised as to the role of Sub Teams vis-à-vis that of the full Working Group, particularly in relation to the treatment of Sub Team proposals. Under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Sub Teams may be used “as an efficient means of delegating topics or assignments to be completed [and] sub-teams report their results to the whole Working Group for review and approval” (Section 2.3). The three URS Sub Teams have spent a considerable amount of time and conducted extensive deliberations that have resulted in their various reports to the full Working Group and the findings and proposals now reflected in the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table. As highlighted during the last Working Group call, the full Working Group is now being requested to carefully review and discuss those proposals. It is also important to note that the Working Group Guidelines “encourage representational balance [on Sub Teams] to the degree possible. However, it should be understood that there will not always be volunteers from every interest group and that it is often acceptable to have a small sub-team that is not totally representational perform an initial role that will later be reviewed by a broader more representational group” (Section 2.2.). In any event, the revised Procedures make clear that Sub Team recommendations only have a rebuttable presumption, subject to Working Group feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; and that Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus. Unless Working Group members have specific objections to the revisions or wish to raise concerns that have not been voiced to date, these Proposed Procedures will go into effect as of the next Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 05 September, during which the Working Group will use the “Super Consolidated URS Topics Table” (as updated by staff following the last Sub Team calls) for the review of the URS Sub Teams’ proposals. A new version of that document will be sent shortly and Working Group members are requested to be prepared to discuss the Sub Teams’ proposals for policy or operational changes. For those instances where Sub Teams have agreed that no additional policy work is required, WG members can propose otherwise. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs