Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were submitted. In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September, the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows: Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition, the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic: Operational Fixes; Policy Recommendations; Other proposals. The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document: To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two (2) proposals per meeting. When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. After the presentation: Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals. All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals on the Working Group email list. In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also, as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings. 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 before ICANN63. Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner: Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration, and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work. Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2 items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach. Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG members are already making through their participation in WG meetings and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary. Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual URS Proposals and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase 2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by clicking the “Quick Download” tab. 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 and October, beginning on Monday, 17 September. Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
Hi folks, With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However, several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP: - #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders - #15 - repeat offenders penalties - #21 - loser pays - #22 - loser pays - #26 - panelist rotation - #27 - current CV of panelists - #28 - conflict of interest policy Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2. I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to be submitted, on August 26, 2018: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html And the co-chairs subsequently decided that: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html "Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF) But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying: "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do, especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be limited only to the UDRP. Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen simultaneously. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were submitted.
In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September, the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows: Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition, the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic:
Operational Fixes; Policy Recommendations; Other proposals.
The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two (2) proposals per meeting. When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale, and supporting evidence. The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have discretion to increase the discussion time. At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion. After the presentation:
Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals. All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals on the Working Group email list.
In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also, as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings.
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 before ICANN63. Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration, and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work. Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2 items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach. Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG members are already making through their participation in WG meetings and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual URS Proposals and on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase 2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by clicking the “Quick Download” tab.
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 and October, beginning on Monday, 17 September.
Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment.
Best regards,
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
George: The co-chairs will certainly take your views into account on this, and discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur when it is brought up for discussion. The same view can also be expressed by any party filing a comment on the Initial Report. And if any significant portion of the WG has that view, the proposal will likely not achieve the consensus support to become a Phase 1 recommendation. However, to clarify, this statement -- "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." -- refers to phase 2 UDRP proposals. We thought that was implicit but now it is explicit. It is therefore not at odds with our prior statement that " no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures". I hope that clarifies matters. 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, September 11, 2018 5:18 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations Hi folks, With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However, several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP: - #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders - #15 - repeat offenders penalties - #21 - loser pays - #22 - loser pays - #26 - panelist rotation - #27 - current CV of panelists - #28 - conflict of interest policy Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2. I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to be submitted, on August 26, 2018: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html And the co-chairs subsequently decided that: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html "Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF) But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying: "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do, especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be limited only to the UDRP. Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen simultaneously. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group
members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on
COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were
submitted.
In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September,
the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have
reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows:
Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition,
the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated
URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and
Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the
presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic:
Operational Fixes;
Policy Recommendations;
Other proposals.
The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is
subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to
ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two
(2) proposals per meeting.
When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a
maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale,
and supporting evidence.
The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment
on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total
discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is
exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have
discretion to increase the discussion time.
At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more
commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to
respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion.
After the presentation:
Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as
attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff
shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals.
All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals
on the Working Group email list.
In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive
advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for
presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be
permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also,
as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to
present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings.
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 before ICANN63.
Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of
the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as
Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be
listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration,
and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a
manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member
proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any
Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does
not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work.
Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2
items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach.
Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of
all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG
members are already making through their participation in WG meetings
and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual
URS Proposals and on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki
page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the
individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date
of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual
progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase
2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these
proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by
clicking the “Quick Download” tab.
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 and
October, beginning on Monday, 17 September.
Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting
on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested
draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have
submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team
policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their
individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The
acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related
individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate
support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related
sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
If the goal was to bring efficiency to our work, then they shouldn't be "brought up for discussion" now. If those proposals are going to get free "air time" now to "market them" to the working group, then my proposals deserve to get the same air time and exposure now, even though I already know they should be deferred until Phase 2. There needs to be some consistency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
The co-chairs will certainly take your views into account on this, and discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur when it is brought up for discussion. The same view can also be expressed by any party filing a comment on the Initial Report. And if any significant portion of the WG has that view, the proposal will likely not achieve the consensus support to become a Phase 1 recommendation.
However, to clarify, this statement -- "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." -- refers to phase 2 UDRP proposals. We thought that was implicit but now it is explicit.
It is therefore not at odds with our prior statement that " no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures".
I hope that clarifies matters.
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, September 11, 2018 5:18 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
Hi folks,
With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However, several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP:
- #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders
- #15 - repeat offenders penalties
- #21 - loser pays
- #22 - loser pays
- #26 - panelist rotation
- #27 - current CV of panelists
- #28 - conflict of interest policy
Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2.
I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to be submitted, on August 26, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html
And the co-chairs subsequently decided that:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html
"Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF)
But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying:
"To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work."
In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do, especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be limited only to the UDRP.
Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen simultaneously.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group
members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on
COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were
submitted.
In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September,
the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have
reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows:
Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition,
the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated
URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and
Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the
presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic:
Operational Fixes;
Policy Recommendations;
Other proposals.
The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is
subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to
ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two
(2) proposals per meeting.
When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a
maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale,
and supporting evidence.
The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment
on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total
discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is
exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have
discretion to increase the discussion time.
At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more
commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to
respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion.
After the presentation:
Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as
attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff
shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals.
All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals
on the Working Group email list.
In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive
advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for
presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be
permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also,
as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to
present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings.
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 before ICANN63.
Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of
the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as
Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be
listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration,
and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a
manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member
proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any
Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does
not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work.
Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2
items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach.
Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of
all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG
members are already making through their participation in WG meetings
and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual
URS Proposals and on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki
page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the
individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date
of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual
progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase
2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these
proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by
clicking the “Quick Download” tab.
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 and
October, beginning on Monday, 17 September.
Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting
on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested
draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have
submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team
policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their
individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The
acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related
individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate
support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related
sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
George: As I said, the co-chairs will consider your views on this, which were posted less than an hour ago, when we next meet. The WG will not be reaching any individual WG member proposals until next week at the earliest. My main purpose in replying was to clarify that the "does not foreclose" statement referenced UDRP proposals in Phase 2. 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, September 11, 2018 5:56 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations If the goal was to bring efficiency to our work, then they shouldn't be "brought up for discussion" now. If those proposals are going to get free "air time" now to "market them" to the working group, then my proposals deserve to get the same air time and exposure now, even though I already know they should be deferred until Phase 2. There needs to be some consistency. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
The co-chairs will certainly take your views into account on this, and discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur when it is brought up for discussion. The same view can also be expressed by any party filing a comment on the Initial Report. And if any significant portion of the WG has that view, the proposal will likely not achieve the consensus support to become a Phase 1 recommendation.
However, to clarify, this statement -- "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." -- refers to phase 2 UDRP proposals. We thought that was implicit but now it is explicit.
It is therefore not at odds with our prior statement that " no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures".
I hope that clarifies matters.
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, September 11, 2018 5:18 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
Hi folks,
With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However, several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP:
- #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders
- #15 - repeat offenders penalties
- #21 - loser pays
- #22 - loser pays
- #26 - panelist rotation
- #27 - current CV of panelists
- #28 - conflict of interest policy
Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2.
I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to be submitted, on August 26, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html
And the co-chairs subsequently decided that:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html
"Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF)
But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying:
"To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work."
In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do, especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be limited only to the UDRP.
Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen simultaneously.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group
members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on
COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were
submitted.
In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September,
the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have
reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows:
Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition,
the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated
URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and
Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the
presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic:
Operational Fixes;
Policy Recommendations;
Other proposals.
The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is
subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to
ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two
(2) proposals per meeting.
When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a
maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale,
and supporting evidence.
The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment
on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total
discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is
exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have
discretion to increase the discussion time.
At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more
commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to
respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion.
After the presentation:
Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as
attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff
shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals.
All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals
on the Working Group email list.
In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive
advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for
presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be
permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also,
as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to
present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings.
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 before ICANN63.
Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of
the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as
Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be
listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration,
and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a
manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member
proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any
Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does
not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work.
Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2
items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach.
Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of
all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG
members are already making through their participation in WG meetings
and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual
URS Proposals and on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki
page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the
individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date
of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual
progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase
2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these
proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by
clicking the “Quick Download” tab.
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 and
October, beginning on Monday, 17 September.
Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting
on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested
draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have
submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team
policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their
individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The
acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related
individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate
support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related
sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Phil, The reason I had to respond most recently, though, was because of the first part of your earlier email, which stated: "discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur ***when it is brought up for discussion***" (emphasis added) So, it appeared to me that it had **already been decided**, based on that statement, that proposals not already designated as Phase 2 would get free "air time" before the group to market themselves (i.e. "when it is brought up for discussion"), which would advantage them. So, I simply proposed consistency, and I hope that will be considered. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
As I said, the co-chairs will consider your views on this, which were posted less than an hour ago, when we next meet. The WG will not be reaching any individual WG member proposals until next week at the earliest.
My main purpose in replying was to clarify that the "does not foreclose" statement referenced UDRP proposals in Phase 2.
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, September 11, 2018 5:56 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
If the goal was to bring efficiency to our work, then they shouldn't be "brought up for discussion" now. If those proposals are going to get free "air time" now to "market them" to the working group, then my proposals deserve to get the same air time and exposure now, even though I already know they should be deferred until Phase 2. There needs to be some consistency.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
The co-chairs will certainly take your views into account on this, and discussion of whether a specific proposal would best be deferred to phase 2 can occur when it is brought up for discussion. The same view can also be expressed by any party filing a comment on the Initial Report. And if any significant portion of the WG has that view, the proposal will likely not achieve the consensus support to become a Phase 1 recommendation.
However, to clarify, this statement -- "To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work." -- refers to phase 2 UDRP proposals. We thought that was implicit but now it is explicit.
It is therefore not at odds with our prior statement that " no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures".
I hope that clarifies matters.
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, September 11, 2018 5:18 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Order and Schedule for Individual URS Proposal Presentations
Hi folks,
With regards to the new proposal with regards to treatment of issues that can be deferred to Phase 2, it appears I was the only one who explicitly designated various proposals in that manner. However, several others appear to also fall into that category, unless the proponents are explicitly only planning to raise them with regards to the URS, but then *not* apply them to the UDRP. From a quick review of the list (with the new numbering), it seems to me the following proposals/topics would also apply to both the URS and UDRP:
- #14 - sanctions for repeat offenders
- #15 - repeat offenders penalties
- #21 - loser pays
- #22 - loser pays
- #26 - panelist rotation
- #27 - current CV of panelists
- #28 - conflict of interest policy
Other proponents should review their proposals and reassess whether they want to raise the same topic for the UDRP, in which case deferral to Phase 2 should apply. Folks shouldn't be advantaged by suggesting a topic is limited only to the URS, if they intend to make the same proposal with regards to the UDRP later. If folks have a proposal/topic that is designated as Phase 1 only (applying just to the URS), then that proposal/topic should be blocked for consideration with regards to the UDRP in Phase 2.
I had initially raised this the issue of when Phase 2 topics needed to be submitted, on August 26, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003245.html
And the co-chairs subsequently decided that:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003249.html
"Absent extenuating circumstances, and subject to discretion of the co-chairs or substantial support from WG members, no URS proposal from a WG member(s) will normally be considered in Phase 2 unless it has been proposed during Phase 1 in conformity with these Final Procedures. " (see page 2 of PDF)
But, now the co-chairs seem to have changed that, saying:
"To be clear, the acceptance of any Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work."
In my view, folks who wanted to submit Phase 2 proposals that impact the URS should have already done so, just like I was compelled to do, especially since this was specifically contemplated. They shouldn't get a "2nd bite" later, having ignored the requirement to have proposed it by September 6, 2018. Future Phase 2 proposals should be limited only to the UDRP.
Lastly, some of the current recommendations of sub teams might also fall into that Phase 2 bucket, and would need to be deferred. I brought this up during our last call. Where there's overlap/conflict between a sub team recommendation and one or more of the proposals that will be deferred until Phase 2, the sub team proposal shouldn't be advantaged, being put out for public comment while the related proposal is paused until Phase 2. They both need to be considered or deferred, so that public comments on the related issues happen simultaneously.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
As reported last week, the deadline for individual Working Group
members to submit Proposals for URS policy and operational recommendations closed on
COB 06 September. By the deadline, thirty-three (33) URS Proposals were
submitted.
In preparation for the Working Group meeting on Monday, 17 September,
the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs, in coordination with staff, have
reviewed the individual URS proposals and have grouped them by type as follows:
Operational Fixes, Policy Recommendations, and Other. In addition,
the proposals have been mapped to the topics in the Super Consolidated
URS Topic Table. Per the attached Procedures for URS Policy and
Operational Recommendations, the Co-Chair propose to schedule the
presentations in the following order, organized by URS topic:
Operational Fixes;
Policy Recommendations;
Other proposals.
The order and schedule for individual URS proposal presentations is
subject to the following procedures as described in the attached document:
To the maximum extent possible, presentations will be rotated to
ensure that the same Working Group member is not making more than two
(2) proposals per meeting.
When a proposal is up for discussion, its proponent will be accorded a
maximum of five (5) minutes to orally present the proposal, rationale,
and supporting evidence.
The floor will then be open to other Working Group members to comment
on the proposal for a maximum of two (2) minutes each, with total
discussion limited to twenty (20) minutes. However, if there is
exceptionally high interest in a topic, the Co-Chairs would have
discretion to increase the discussion time.
At the end of twenty (20) minutes, or when there are no more
commenters in queue, the proponent will have up to four (4) minutes to
respond and/or propose a modification of the proposal based upon the discussion.
After the presentation:
Shortly following the conclusion of the call (i.e. as soon as
attendance, chat, and link to mp3 recording are available), staff
shall post to the email list the final text and rationale of considered proposals.
All Working Group members will be invited to comment on the proposals
on the Working Group email list.
In addition, per the attached procedures proponents will receive
advance notice of the date on which their proposal is scheduled for
presentation to ensure they will be available. Proponents will be
permitted to request an alternate date if they have a conflict. Also,
as requested, proponents will be able to designate an alternate to
present on their behalf if they are unable to present at any of the available meetings.
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 before ICANN63.
Consequently, the Co-Chairs also propose expediting the handling of
the 33 proposals to keep to the Phase 1 timeline in the following manner:
Deferring discussion of proposals designated by their proponent as
Phase 2 items until we reach Phase 2, with an assurance they will be
listed in the Initial Report as reserved for Phase 2 consideration,
and that they will be brought up for discussion during Phase 2 in a
manner consistent with any procedures for consideration of WG member
proposals adopted for Phase 2. To be clear, the acceptance of any
Phase II proposals submitted presently for preservation purposes does
not foreclose the additional submission of future Phase II proposals by WG members when the WG is at that stage of its work.
Any proponents who have designated their current URS proposals Phase 2
items will be contacted separately to confirm their agreement with this approach.
Possibly holding two meetings per week to complete consideration of
all items before ICANN63. The Co-Chairs appreciate the time that WG
members are already making through their participation in WG meetings
and will only utilize this option if it appears absolutely necessary.
Please see the attached table of the order and schedule of Individual
URS Proposals and on the wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/x/aACNBQ. Staff have reorganized the wiki
page and renamed the document files to reflect the order of the
individual URS proposal presentation. The tentative presentation date
of each proposal is included, subject to change depending on actual
progress. The proposals about topics that can be deferred to Phase
2 are colored in grey; no presentation date has been assigned to these
proposals. You may view and download all URS proposals quickly by
clicking the “Quick Download” tab.
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 and
October, beginning on Monday, 17 September.
Finally, the Co-Chairs reiterate that the next Working Group meeting
on 12 September is for the consideration of the URS Sub Team suggested
draft policy recommendations. Working Group members who have
submitted proposals similar to or on the same subject as a sub-team
policy proposal are asked to hold any comments regarding their
individual proposals until their scheduled presentations. The
acceptance of a sub-team proposal will not preempt that of a related
individual proposal; if such an individual proposal elicits adequate
support, the co-chairs may suggest that it be combined with a related
sub-team proposal or, if appropriate, both proposals may be included in the Initial Report for public comment.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry
On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (3)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Julie Hedlund