Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals
I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report. If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error. So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report? Yours sincerely, Paul.
Paul: The co-chairs already promulgated and the WG already accepted the standard that any individual WG member that demonstrated “adequate support” would be include in the IR for the purpose of soliciting public WG. What I stated on the call you missed was a personal view that any proposal submitted by a trade association with broad breadth of membership – whether INTA or ICA – likely meets that standard. Some agreed, others did not. When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations. 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report. If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error. So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report? Yours sincerely, Paul.
Thank you for the reply Phillip, but it doesn’t really seem to provide a clear mechanism for improving or removing obviously flawed proposals prior to the initial report. This is incredibly important as it will remove obviously flawed proposals prior to any public consultation and save a great deal of work. This may be better illustrated with an example: #3 requires … <i>“proposals to be substantially specific and not general in nature. One proposal for one recommendation only.”</i> Proposal #22 for example is very vague as it may be targeted at all respondents or it may be targeted at a handful of repeat offenders. If we look at any population the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding and only a small percentage of the population play at the edge or break the rules. And of that small number who break the rules only a very small percentage of those do so habitually. #22 is very bad, because it uses the behaviour of a small minority of miscreants as a justification to skew the framework to the advantage of a specific interest group over the whole of their target group. Further the verbal rationale on the call was also shockingly bad and as such also needs to be formally addressed if #22 is going to proceed much further. Clearly part of, one call, attended by a small subset of working group members is not sufficient to identify flawed proposals. We need a formal mechanism to weed out these sorts of proposals as early as possible otherwise we will waste a great deal of time on them simply as a result of them progressing further. We really should learn from what happened in the IGO/INGO WG, we don’t want a similar disaster here. On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
The co-chairs already promulgated and the WG already accepted the standard that any individual WG member that demonstrated “adequate support” would be include in the IR for the purpose of soliciting public WG.
What I stated on the call you missed was a personal view that any proposal submitted by a trade association with broad breadth of membership – whether INTA or ICA – likely meets that standard. Some agreed, others did not.
When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations.
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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Tattersfield *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals
I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report.
If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error.
So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report?
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
Without commenting on any specific proposal, as we near the end of their review the co-chairs will be consulting with staff and will report back to the WG, for its consideration, as to which proposals have demonstrated adequate support and will be included in the IR for public comment, and which have not yet done so. 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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 8:56 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals Thank you for the reply Phillip, but it doesn’t really seem to provide a clear mechanism for improving or removing obviously flawed proposals prior to the initial report. This is incredibly important as it will remove obviously flawed proposals prior to any public consultation and save a great deal of work. This may be better illustrated with an example: #3 requires … <i>“proposals to be substantially specific and not general in nature. One proposal for one recommendation only.”</i> Proposal #22 for example is very vague as it may be targeted at all respondents or it may be targeted at a handful of repeat offenders. If we look at any population the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding and only a small percentage of the population play at the edge or break the rules. And of that small number who break the rules only a very small percentage of those do so habitually. #22 is very bad, because it uses the behaviour of a small minority of miscreants as a justification to skew the framework to the advantage of a specific interest group over the whole of their target group. Further the verbal rationale on the call was also shockingly bad and as such also needs to be formally addressed if #22 is going to proceed much further. Clearly part of, one call, attended by a small subset of working group members is not sufficient to identify flawed proposals. We need a formal mechanism to weed out these sorts of proposals as early as possible otherwise we will waste a great deal of time on them simply as a result of them progressing further. We really should learn from what happened in the IGO/INGO WG, we don’t want a similar disaster here. On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: The co-chairs already promulgated and the WG already accepted the standard that any individual WG member that demonstrated “adequate support” would be include in the IR for the purpose of soliciting public WG. What I stated on the call you missed was a personal view that any proposal submitted by a trade association with broad breadth of membership – whether INTA or ICA – likely meets that standard. Some agreed, others did not. When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations. 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report. If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error. So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report? Yours sincerely, Paul.
Without commenting at length on the IGO/INGO WG, it seems that a viewing of “Rashomon” would be in order. On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:58 AM Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Without commenting on any specific proposal, as we near the end of their review the co-chairs will be consulting with staff and will report back to the WG, for its consideration, as to which proposals have demonstrated adequate support and will be included in the IR for public comment, and which have not yet done so.
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:* Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 8:56 AM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals
Thank you for the reply Phillip, but it doesn’t really seem to provide a clear mechanism for improving or removing obviously flawed proposals prior to the initial report. This is incredibly important as it will remove obviously flawed proposals prior to any public consultation and save a great deal of work.
This may be better illustrated with an example: #3 requires … <i>“proposals to be substantially specific and not general in nature. One proposal for one recommendation only.”</i>
Proposal #22 for example is very vague as it may be targeted at all respondents or it may be targeted at a handful of repeat offenders. If we look at any population the overwhelming majority of people are law abiding and only a small percentage of the population play at the edge or break the rules. And of that small number who break the rules only a very small percentage of those do so habitually.
#22 is very bad, because it uses the behaviour of a small minority of miscreants as a justification to skew the framework to the advantage of a specific interest group over the whole of their target group.
Further the verbal rationale on the call was also shockingly bad and as such also needs to be formally addressed if #22 is going to proceed much further.
Clearly part of, one call, attended by a small subset of working group members is not sufficient to identify flawed proposals. We need a formal mechanism to weed out these sorts of proposals as early as possible otherwise we will waste a great deal of time on them simply as a result of them progressing further.
We really should learn from what happened in the IGO/INGO WG, we don’t want a similar disaster here.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:38 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
The co-chairs already promulgated and the WG already accepted the standard that any individual WG member that demonstrated “adequate support” would be include in the IR for the purpose of soliciting public WG.
What I stated on the call you missed was a personal view that any proposal submitted by a trade association with broad breadth of membership – whether INTA or ICA – likely meets that standard. Some agreed, others did not.
When we get to the Final Report only those proposals that demonstrate consensus support will be included as recommendations.
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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Tattersfield *Sent:* Tuesday, October 09, 2018 7:01 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rpm-wg] Dealing with unsatisfactory proposals
I was unable to attend last week’s call because a couple of other long standing Wednesday meeting commitments, unfortunately it looks increasingly likely I will unavoidable need to be elsewhere this week too and I have serious concerns with some of the proposals. I reviewd the AC chat recording from last week and I was very concerned to hear one of the co-chairs say he [personally] believed a proposal from an Industry Group should get an automatic entry into to initial report.
If I remember correctly we had a similar problem with the IGO/INGO draft report where those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting its report to correct that fundamental error.
So what is the best way to ensure fundamentally flawed proposals are considered more fully before there is any expectation they will meet the initial report?
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (3)
-
Corwin, Philip -
Greg Shatan -
Paul Tattersfield