Hi all, I want to strongly support Rebecca on this, it seems the best way to solve the issue of "support" that was not clear even when we start with it. Throwing hours of debate to it wont help to reach a much more accurate set of proposals anyways. It would almost mean going again to each proposal to check if there is "support", if we even get to agree on that. We just have to make it clear that proposala are not put out as any consensus or agreement of the group. For the record, and it is already in the meeting records, I thought and supported in the beginning that only proposals with no strong objections, or soft consensus, should move to public comment, and me and other were overun saying only "support" was needed, so we moved on each proposal taking notes on support interventions. I agree with Rebeca that notes might not be enough to just let staff check the level of support and decide something based on that. I also agree, as I stated in the call last week, that asking if the URS is fit for purpose is exactly the type of core question. We are reviewing wether thigs work or not how we planned and if we should change them. This question is absolutely relevant to that end. Best to all, Martín Silva On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 18:49 Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
Following up on what I said on one of the calls, and consistent with Greg Shatan's comments (an agreement that I think should probably be noted as significant in itself), I don't think the staff categorizations have worked. If the ultimate point is to get feedback on potential fixes that have been raised, and we don't want to spend a lot more time on this, then I would say we may need to pass on the proposals as non-consensus proposals for community feedback. As Greg did, I supported proposals for comment that I am presently unlikely to support for adoption; based on other comments, I suspect many of us did so--which means that any staff-prepared summary of objections received is also going to be unrepresentative of the full range of arguments against a particular proposal unless we spend a lot more time on it.
One specific thing: the charter asks if the URS is fit for purpose. If you agree that the charge allows the answer "no," then one recommendation for a fix is "make it the UDRP," if you think the game isn't worth the candle. That proposal is thus clearly within scope.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg