Hi folks, At the end of today's call, we were asked to put in writing some of the points that we'd expressed regarding the proposed process. Early on in this PDP, it had been decided that no deference was owed any of the work of the subteams. However, this proposed process suddenly changes the rules of the game, during the middle of the game, and gives advantages to proposals that have come out of the 3 subteams. We see that in several places in this document: (i) subteam proposals do not have to answer the various detailed questions that are required in the online form (or .doc), unlike those from individuals (ii) subteam proposals don't go through the "polls" on page 3 for support/oppose/defer (iii) subteam proposals are (second bullet point of point #7 on page 4) included in the Initial Report as being considered "Working Group Recommendations" (unless there's "significant opposition"), but it's impossible for proposals from individuals to become "Working Group Recommendations" in that initial report, regardless of the level of support or "significant opposition". Thus, those subteam proposals have an elevated status when reviewed by the public in any report. (iv) subteam proposals are included by default "unless there is substantial opposition", whereas individual working group member proposals are *excluded* by default, "unless there is substantial support". As Paul Tattersfield noted in today's Adobe Connect chat, that's treating "silence" differently. If this disparate treatment is not eliminated, this implies that working group members will in the future feel compelled to participate in every subteam, if there's an advantage to be gained by doing so (and there's a clear advantage being given in this proposed process). If everyone has to join the subteams, to avoid being disadvantaged, then that defeats the purpose of having subteams, i.e. keeping them small, etc., as they then become mirrors of the entire working group. Normally we're not supposed to do a "+1" or post simple "I agree", etc. posts, but if folks *agree* with the co-chairs' proposal (which has those differences), then they should vocalize that support. Similarly, if folks agree there's a problem, they should vocalize their support for treating all proposals equally, with a similar process regardless of where the proposal originated. Otherwise, we get back into the "How shall we interpret the silence?" issue. Lastly, as for the deadline (which apparently has moved to COB of August 31st now, i.e. Friday night), I would suggest it be moved to at least COB Tuesday September 4, 2018) -- I find it hard to believe that staff/co-chairs will spend the Labour Day weekend studying proposals submitted by Friday night. My preference would be that it be Sept 5 or 12, as stated earlier, given that we're apparently not going to get to the individual presentations until late September in any event, due to review of the subteam proposals first. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:10 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi again,
3. As a test, I tried making a submission on the online form. After one clicks "Done", it simply thanks one for the submission, and there's no record (for the submitter) of what they actually submitted. If it's possible, it might be wise for the next page to display what was actually submitted, so that the submitter can have an accurate and independent record of their submission. [presumably having an email input field, and emailing them the submission would be prone to abuse by spammers, so that wouldn't be a wise approach] If this can't be done, I'd appreciate a copy of the .DOC template.
4. Given the summer holidays, and the extensive answers required for fields 3 through 8 of the form (which were not present in past discussions regarding submissions), I think the current proposed deadline of August 29, 2018 is insufficient. At least an extra week until September 5, 2018 or even September 12, 2018 might be more appropriate. Given that we'll be discussing the subteam recommendations for a couple of weeks anyhow, this would not impact the timeline of our work (i.e. individual recommendations can then be handled immediately thereafter, once the extensive subteam proposals are reviewed/debated on our weekly calls and on the mailing list).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
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