Griffin:
Thank you again for the time and effort you put into these thoughtful proposals and analysis. Your discussion of Individual Proposal 3 appears to have allowed the WG to complete its consideration of the matter. And I look forward to any
further refinement that you and others may bring back to the WG in regard to Individual Proposals 15 & 22 and the problem of serial cybersquatting they seek to address.
When I intervened to express procedural concerns regarding the latter on this morning’s call, I was experiencing technical issues that had locked me out of the meeting and chat (other than audio) and was therefore somewhat distracted trying
to resolve the problem (which required a restart). So, thinking about our discussion post-meeting, let me refine my thoughts somewhat – noting that this is the view of just one of the three co-chairs, although I would hope they are generally supported after
any further discussion.
Therefore, I would posit the following:
- When a WG member(s) seeks to further amend an Initial Report WG recommendation, and/or one or more individual proposals, the standard for the amended language’s inclusion as a WG recommendation
in the Final Report is that it has achieved consensus support. We are past the phase of our work where proposals receiving only broad support, much less individual proposals with only limited support, should move forward.
- The WG is
not prohibited from considering the substantive content of any amended recommendation or proposal because some or all of it is new and has not been the focus of community comment on the Initial Report. However, when the amended content is included in
the Final Report and it raises substantial new legal or policy issues, or places substantial new operational or financial obligations on ICANN stakeholders or constituents or ICANN Org itself, then at least those portions of the draft Final Report should be
put out for additional community comment, and those comments should subsequently be reviewed and evaluated by the WG before a Final Report is delivered to Council. It would not be responsible, or fair to Council, for the WG to include new material of this
nature without soliciting further community input.
- If WG members support inclusion of an amended recommendation or proposal containing such substantial material in the Final Report, they should do so with the understanding that it
will likely delay delivery of a Final Report to Council by mid-October and therefore require the filing of another Change Request with a revised delivery date; and that it will likely delay the completion of Phase 1 and the initiation of Phase 2 of this WG.
Summing up, I hope this clarifies my view that the WG can consider new ideas at this stage of our work, but that in certain instances the inclusion of such new material in a draft Final Report should necessitate further community comment
prior to the conclusion of phase 1.
Best, 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
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 12:52 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Hi all,
Per the proposed agenda item 2 below, attached please find two documents that will help guide the discussion: (1) an updated and consolidated URS Individual Proposal 15/22; and (2) a review and rationale regarding
URS Individual Proposal 3 that ultimately concludes that this proposal is actually not necessary after all and should be eliminated from further consideration. On the latter point, the initial intent was to simply revise the proposal, based on discussions
we had a few weeks ago, but in attempting to do so and conducting some further research, I found that the proposal is likely not needed for the problem it was apparently developed to address – this is of course discussed in more detail in the document.
I will be happy to walk us through these items during the call. Any questions or feedback in the meantime is welcome.
Best,
Griffin
|
|
Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 +1 202 759 5836 |
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 3:15 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Dear RPM WG members,
Please find the updated
proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting
Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Draft Proposed Agenda:
- Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
- Review of URS Proposals #3, #15, #22 – with proposal from Griffin Barnett (TBD), see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit?usp=sharing and the Public Comment Analysis summary at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing
- Review of TMCH Proposals #4 and #5 – with proposal from Rebecca Tushnet, Paul Tattersfield, and Claudio di Gangi (TBD), see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit?usp=sharing and the Public Comment Analysis summary at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing
- Review of Additional Overarching Question #3, see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and the table of contents on the first tab
- Review of General Content Questions #1 and #2, see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and the table of contents on the first tab
- AOB
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel