Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations).
Hi Julie thanks for this. I think the order for review may be the wrong way round – or I have misunderstood the graph, which is also possible. Isn’t #2 the highest level of support, and #23 the lowest, etc etc? The graph on page 4 of the slide deck is of respondents who said “no don’t publish”, so the 90% level on #23 is for not including in the report. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8255 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8299 M: +44 (0) 7971 661175 E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> www.valideus.com<http://www.valideus.com/> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 02 December 2019 21:45 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
Hi Susan/All, I believe Phil said he wanted to take them in opposite pairs i.e. 1st least support, 1st most support, then 2nd least support, second most support, 3rd least etc. I was wondering if we as a working group could establish an overarching principle that allocating/injecting/redistributing costs to opposing parties is a bad idea? (E.g. #23 attempting to load registry workload costs on to URS applicants etc.) The rationale being that URS is a very low cost administrative procedure, and as such needs to be as reasonably priced as possible and claims disposed of as efficiently as possible. The fact that URS is very different from the judicial and arbitral routes is huge plus rather than a weakness. And this means we should be looking to make URS more efficient and effective rather than trying to complicate it by replicating parts of the judicial and arbitral systems ad hoc without the resources required to implement the necessary safeguards. Best regards, Paul On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:58 AM Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Hi Julie thanks for this. I think the order for review may be the wrong way round – or I have misunderstood the graph, which is also possible.
Isn’t #2 the highest level of support, and #23 the lowest, etc etc? The graph on page 4 of the slide deck is of respondents who said “no don’t publish”, so the 90% level on #23 is for not including in the report.
*Susan Payne*
Head of Legal Policy
*Valideus *
D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8255 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8299
M: +44 (0) 7971 661175
E: *susan.payne@valideus.com <susan.payne@valideus.com>*
*www.valideus.com <http://www.valideus.com/>*
*From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* 02 December 2019 21:45 *To:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC
Dear RPM WG members,
Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on *Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC*.
Draft Proposed Agenda:
1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: *POLICY RECOMMENDATION * (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 4. AOB
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: - The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. - For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). - Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief.
- Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. - Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. - Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report.
- Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations).
------------------------------ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com> _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Paul and Susan, Susan is correct. Here is the description in the procedures: “begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed.” Staff had provided a list where the proposal with the least level of support is considered first, then highest level second. We’ll send an updated agenda with the corrected order of proposals. Kind regards, Julie From: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 6:31 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi Susan/All, I believe Phil said he wanted to take them in opposite pairs i.e. 1st least support, 1st most support, then 2nd least support, second most support, 3rd least etc. I was wondering if we as a working group could establish an overarching principle that allocating/injecting/redistributing costs to opposing parties is a bad idea? (E.g. #23 attempting to load registry workload costs on to URS applicants etc.) The rationale being that URS is a very low cost administrative procedure, and as such needs to be as reasonably priced as possible and claims disposed of as efficiently as possible. The fact that URS is very different from the judicial and arbitral routes is huge plus rather than a weakness. And this means we should be looking to make URS more efficient and effective rather than trying to complicate it by replicating parts of the judicial and arbitral systems ad hoc without the resources required to implement the necessary safeguards. Best regards, Paul On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:58 AM Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: Hi Julie thanks for this. I think the order for review may be the wrong way round – or I have misunderstood the graph, which is also possible. Isn’t #2 the highest level of support, and #23 the lowest, etc etc? The graph on page 4 of the slide deck is of respondents who said “no don’t publish”, so the 90% level on #23 is for not including in the report. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Valideus D: +44 (0) 20 7421 8255 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8299 M: +44 (0) 7971 661175 E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> www.valideus.com [valideus.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.valideus.com_&d=DwMF...> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: 02 December 2019 21:45 To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 23, 2, 8, 1, 35, 34, 18, 11, 20, 27, 32, 36, 30, 3, 7, 26, 19, 28, 5, 29, 21, 31, 33, 6, 22, 15, 14, 4, 17, 13, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMFaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Note that the order of the proposals is updated. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations).
Did anyone propose WG recommendation status for any of these by the deadline? I don’t recall any coming through the list. The proposed procedures—with extremely limited discussion—are inappropriate for WG recommendations but seem fine for individual proposals. It would also be useful to distinguish between wide support for publication as an individual proposal and wide support for the substance. As previously noted, the survey and thus the order of consideration presupposes the former. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Dec 3, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear RPM WG members, Please find the proposed agenda and materials for the WG meeting on Wednesday, 04 December at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Note that the order of the proposals is updated. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Working Group to complete discussions regarding the recommendations of the URS Sub Teams’ to go into the Initial Report, re-checking the Sub Team proposal revisions, start on page 4 -- the section that starts: POLICY RECOMMENDATION (Providers ST): URS Rules 3(b) should be amended in light of GDPR and the permissible filing of a “Doe Complaint” See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFY... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> 3. Begin Discussion of Individual URS Proposals, see attached survey results slides and procedure below. The order of the proposal review is: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. 4. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel 1. Procedure for handling individual proposals at each of the December meetings: * The proposals will be reviewed in the following order - begin with a proposal that received the highest level of support for inclusion in the Initial Report, followed by a proposal that received the lowest level of support for inclusion, then a proposal that received the next-highest level of support for inclusion, followed by one that received the next-lowest level of support, and so forth, until all proposals have been reviewed. Based on this procedures, here is the order of the proposals: 2, 23, 1, 8, 34, 35, 11, 18, 27, 20, 36, 32, 3, 30, 26, 7, 28, 19, 29, 5, 31, 21, 6, 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, 16. * For each proposal, where a Working Group member had indicated (by the December 1 deadline) that he/she wished to argue in favor of including the proposal as an actual Working Group recommendation, that member will be given no more than 3 minutes to make his/her case, with questions and answers (limited to 2 minutes per question or answer and two inputs per member). * Members are kindly requested not to rehash arguments/discussions and to keep their remarks, questions and answers very brief. * Subject to a determination by the Chairs, proposals with wide support and virtually no opposition will be considered as recommendations by the WG. * Proposals with wide support and limited opposition will be published for comment in the Initial Report as individual URS Proposals. * Proposals with virtually no support and significant opposition will not be published in the Initial Report. * Following the Working Group’s review of all individual URS proposals, and in accordance with role ascribed to Working Group chair(s) under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the Working Group leadership team will determine whether there is sufficient support from other Working Group members: (i) to “convert” any individual proposal (where one was so argued) to an initial recommendation for purposes of the Initial Report; (ii) to include specific individual proposals in the Initial Report as proposals only; and (iii) to exclude the remaining individual proposals from the Initial Report (although these will all be referenced in the report, with links provided to the actual text of the proposals and the Working Group’s deliberations). _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Paul Tattersfield -
Susan Payne -
Tushnet, Rebecca