List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online. Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG: “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.” The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support: These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment. Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63. Best regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel & Berry On behalf of the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs
*Thank you for the list Julie, a lot of work has gone into it and it shows. I have a couple of questions of the co-chairs: Am I right in assuming the level of support is provisional? Several proposals are looking to consolidate so will there be an opportunity for rebalancing levels of support once the final proposals are in? As I noted earlier on the list I have serious concerns, including for example, proposal #22 and the shockingly bad rational presented to it on the associated call I was unable to attend. Yours sincerely, Paul * On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:27 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-21+ICANN63+Barcelon...> and session 4 <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-10-22+ICANN63+Barcelon...>, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session <https://63.schedule.icann.org/meetings/901715> on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
- *These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63;* - WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; - The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; - The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; - The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
*Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.*
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
Hi folks, I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below: A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it) B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged. C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented. This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement). Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pdf "Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9) so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution). As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others). D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this. E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate"). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change. Best regards all, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels Hi folks, I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below: A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it) B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged. C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented. This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement). Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pdf "Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9) so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution). As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others). D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this. E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate"). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
David, I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs. I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pdf
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur. I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?" It is an issue we will face, why not get input. To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels David, I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs. I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
David, But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says: "On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added) i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Julie and all, I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels. First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation. This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication. Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants. In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal. There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently. *It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, **in each instance**, we are describing support or opposition to **publication of a proposed recommendation** vs. support or opposition to the **substance of the proposal. *Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion. On to the specific Recommendations. *12.* Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here. *14/15.* Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have *11 proponents*. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well. *18/20.* I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick. *33.* Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case. Best regards, Greg P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
#18, #19 and #20's importance was recognized in the historical documents that led to the actual creation of the UDRP (and the 4(k) mutual jurisdiction clause, which the URS emulates), as discussed at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html and was also an important issue in the IGO PDP (i.e. #19 mirrors that PDP's recommendation #5, but #18 is better, and #20 also attempts to improve the situation relative to today), where a year was spent making sure the issue was tackled, to ensure court access for registrants. This PDP is not working correctly if serious proposals that tackle real problems for registrants are being obstructed from even public comment. Why should UK registrants, or those using UK registrars, be penalized, due to a bad implementation of the PDP, and be unable to appeal an adverse URS/UDRP decision in the courts? Same for other affected jurisdictions. "The proposals were designed to provide trademark holders with the ****same rights**** they have in the physical world, to ensure transparency, and to guarantee a dispute resolution mechanism *****with resort to a court system.***** " (emphasis added) "Further, it should be clear that whatever dispute resolution mechanism is put in place by the new corporation, that mechanism should be directed toward disputes about cybersquatting and cyberpiracy and not to settling the disputes between two parties with legitimate competing interests in a particular mark. ****Where legitimate competing rights are concerned, disputes are rightly settled in an appropriate court.**** (emphasis added) "The need to address the situation wherein a domain name registrant who has been unsuccessful in the ADR process is effectively prevented from �appealing� the result in a court due to the absence of a cause of action in contract, tort, regulation, statute or constitutional right. It was noted that there is an imbalance in the WIPO process in that an unsuccessful complainant will always be able to judicially challenge an ADR result by virtue of the jurisdiction of the registry being imposed over the dispute by the WIPO Report." As for #12, the same group who opposed it in the call opposed it on the mailing list. It's ultimately the amount of support that counts. The revised version of #12 should have *more* support than was previously measured, because it would have all past supporters, plus any "new" supporters due to the incorporation of Rebecca's input in the revision to eliminate an unintended consequence in the original version. And given the severe under-representation of registrants' perspectives in this PDP, one needs to implicitly weight things, to discount the over-represented parties (e.g. some law firms or companies have multiple employees as members of this PDP). That avoids the issue that arose in this PDP, for example, when 14 practitioners were "surveyed", all but one of whom represented complainants! The weight of the feedback from the single attorney who represented registrants should have been weighted much higher, to balance things out. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi all, I disagree with Greg’s reasoning regarding levels of support, as I think the focus on pure numbers is misleading. Just because a particular industry can afford to brigade the group with a dozen people, all of whom are essentially paid to say the same thing, does not indicate that a particular proposal has a lot of support – nor would that reasoning reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re supposed to be implementing. I think a much more telling indicator is the breadth of support, particularly across constituencies. Here’s it’s worth noting that several of George’s proposals (ALAC) have attracted support from the ICA (BC) and from people in leadership positions in both the NCUC and NPOC. That, in my mind, reflects a broader base of support, and ultimately a greater likelihood that these proposals will attract consensus, than a proposal which attracts vehement support from the IPC but no support from outside that narrow constituency. Best, Michael On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Well said, Michael. It's worth noting I have experience helping to form consensus across all constituencies, to find excellent solutions. e.g. in the IGO PDP, we had a broad consensus across multiple constituencies: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... and where there was opposition, it was outweighed by other support from the opposers' own constituencies. Or, witness the huge consensus against the SiteFinder proposal (sorry guys from VeriSign), where I helped to mobilize consensus against it. It's early in the process, and some are trying to extinguish proposals that might win the support of the public, by not letting the public even get exposed to the ideas. That's wrong, in my view. Folks need to set aside their personal interests, and think of what's best across all constituencies and stakeholders. I'm not even in the UK, and I'm helping solve a serious problem for their registrants (via #18, #19, and #20). I'm not a registrar or registry, and the cost-recovery proposal I submitted won't impact me, but makes sense as being in the interest of all stakeholders globally (i.e. underlying economic fairness). It doesn't have to "I win, you lose" --- there's "win-win" too. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I disagree with Greg’s reasoning regarding levels of support, as I think the focus on pure numbers is misleading. Just because a particular industry can afford to brigade the group with a dozen people, all of whom are essentially paid to say the same thing, does not indicate that a particular proposal has a lot of support – nor would that reasoning reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re supposed to be implementing.
I think a much more telling indicator is the breadth of support, particularly across constituencies. Here’s it’s worth noting that several of George’s proposals (ALAC) have attracted support from the ICA (BC) and from people in leadership positions in both the NCUC and NPOC.
That, in my mind, reflects a broader base of support, and ultimately a greater likelihood that these proposals will attract consensus, than a proposal which attracts vehement support from the IPC but no support from outside that narrow constituency.
Best,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is deemed to have adequate support. As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:19 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Well said, Michael. It's worth noting I have experience helping to form consensus across all constituencies, to find excellent solutions. e.g. in the IGO PDP, we had a broad consensus across multiple constituencies:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj...
and where there was opposition, it was outweighed by other support from the opposers' own constituencies. Or, witness the huge consensus against the SiteFinder proposal (sorry guys from VeriSign), where I helped to mobilize consensus against it.
It's early in the process, and some are trying to extinguish proposals that might win the support of the public, by not letting the public even get exposed to the ideas. That's wrong, in my view. Folks need to set aside their personal interests, and think of what's best across all constituencies and stakeholders. I'm not even in the UK, and I'm helping solve a serious problem for their registrants (via #18, #19, and #20). I'm not a registrar or registry, and the cost-recovery proposal I submitted won't impact me, but makes sense as being in the interest of all stakeholders globally (i.e. underlying economic fairness). It doesn't have to "I win, you lose" --- there's "win-win" too.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I disagree with Greg’s reasoning regarding levels of support, as I think the focus on pure numbers is misleading. Just because a particular industry can afford to brigade the group with a dozen people, all of whom are essentially paid to say the same thing, does not indicate that a particular proposal has a lot of support – nor would that reasoning reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re supposed to be implementing.
I think a much more telling indicator is the breadth of support, particularly across constituencies. Here’s it’s worth noting that several of George’s proposals (ALAC) have attracted support from the ICA (BC) and from people in leadership positions in both the NCUC and NPOC.
That, in my mind, reflects a broader base of support, and ultimately a greater likelihood that these proposals will attract consensus, than a proposal which attracts vehement support from the IPC but no support from outside that narrow constituency.
Best,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed
recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about
whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying
transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements
of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not
clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I
was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in
our report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in
bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as
limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals
18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate”
based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support.
I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>
wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David < dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd
f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: > Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, > > > > In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 > and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS > Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG > deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, > and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested > levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe > a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they > wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For > those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first > face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at > 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, > please feel free to let us know your thoughts online. > > > > Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of > the procedures, as agreed to by the WG: > > > > “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working > Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial > Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be > clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, > subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to > be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting > community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, > will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.” > > > > The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to > these suggested levels of support: > > > > These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the > WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the > suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are > any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination > with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the > deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all > proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will > note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve > adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the > proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose > revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment. > > > > Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them > to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that > they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Paul T., On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is deemed to have adequate support.
As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.
The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox, or AT&T is approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" -- they're just recovering those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an example: https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-informati... "$50.00 Per account for basic information* "$100.00 Expedited handling fee" "$75.00/hr./staff Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)" "Wiretap $3,125 for 30 days" And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the thread at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html etc. Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do, it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA. Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty, based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide further data/insights. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
This should simply be the cost of doing business for registrars and registries. They can easily offset ths cost by adding a few pennies to each domain name registration or renewal After all, brand owners are expected to assume the costs of defending their rights and protecting their consumers. If you are argue that domain name registrants should not have to pay a few pennies more to cover this cost, then by the same token the world's consumers should not have to pay a few pennies more so a small group of folks can benefit at their expense. If you are truly worried about this cost, then perhaps the solution is to have registrants and complainants who are in a proceeding pay an additional small fee. The losing party has that fee paid to the registrar and registry and the winner gets his or her money back. This seems like a much fairer and more reasonable proposal. After all someone can register a domain name for under $30 and cause another party to spend thousands of dollars to prevent potentially nefarious activity. So that initial registrant should be potentially on the hook for something apart from the loss of a $30 or less domain name registration. You could even tie the cost to an outcome based result. If you fail to pay the fee then you lose automatically or your case gets terminated as a Complainant. Again, the point is that this is a cost of doing business, but if you and others want to insist on going down that path then there needs to be balance and registrants should be on the hook as well. From: icann@leap.com Sent: October 17, 2018 7:34 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels Hi Paul T., On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is deemed to have adequate support.
As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.
The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox, or AT&T is approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" -- they're just recovering those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an example: https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-informati... "$50.00 Per account for basic information* "$100.00 Expedited handling fee" "$75.00/hr./staff Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)" "Wiretap $3,125 for 30 days" And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the thread at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html etc. Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do, it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA. Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty, based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide further data/insights. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Hello Georges, I believe that without understanding of the amounts we can not blindly approve additional costs. 30USD for a domain name with the TLD price of 5USD is a lot. Under the current set of RAA 2013, RA contracts, any outside requestors to Registrar or Registry contracts are pure third parties and have no additional rights. Making a particular set of Registrant benefactors of the process is not fair to other Registrants, and Registries and Registrars can not provide unlimited amount of services for free. P.s: Direct regulation of prices via policy will not work, due to a picket fence part of RA and RAA2013 contracts. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 18 Oct 2018, at 03:09, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
This should simply be the cost of doing business for registrars and registries. They can easily offset ths cost by adding a few pennies to each domain name registration or renewal After all, brand owners are expected to assume the costs of defending their rights and protecting their consumers. If you are argue that domain name registrants should not have to pay a few pennies more to cover this cost, then by the same token the world's consumers should not have to pay a few pennies more so a small group of folks can benefit at their expense. If you are truly worried about this cost, then perhaps the solution is to have registrants and complainants who are in a proceeding pay an additional small fee. The losing party has that fee paid to the registrar and registry and the winner gets his or her money back. This seems like a much fairer and more reasonable proposal. After all someone can register a domain name for under $30 and cause another party to spend thousands of dollars to prevent potentially nefarious activity. So that initial registrant should be potentially on the hook for something apart from the loss of a $30 or less domain name registration. You could even tie the cost to an outcome based result. If you fail to pay the fee then you lose automatically or your case gets terminated as a Complainant. Again, the point is that this is a cost of doing business, but if you and others want to insist on going down that path then there needs to be balance and registrants should be on the hook as well.
From: icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: October 17, 2018 7:34 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi Paul T.,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com <mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote:
George #23 doesn’t seem very sensible and I’m somewhat surprised it is deemed to have adequate support.
As I have already pointed out the TM holder is a 3rd party looking to intervene in a private contract. What you are proposing is that one of the parties to the contract that is causing the problem should be rewarded proportionately to level of bad behaviour, which would have the effect of working in direct opposition to the intenttions of RAA 3.18.
The registrar (or registry) isn't being "rewarded" --- they're simply recovering their compliance/admin costs associated with providing help to providers during the dispute. Forget about domain names for a moment, and suppose that an ISP like Verizon, Cox, or AT&T is approached to provide information about one of their subscribers (by law enforcement, copyright holders, etc.). There are staff costs to do that. Those ISPs aren't getting "rewarded" -- they're just recovering those costs (the cost recovery needs to be "reasonable"). It doesn't become a "profit center." Here's a cost schedule for Cox, as an example:
https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-informati... <https://www.cox.com/aboutus/policies/law-enforcement-and-subpoenas-informati...>
"$50.00 Per account for basic information* "$100.00 Expedited handling fee" "$75.00/hr./staff Requests requiring greater than 0.5 hours ($40.00 minimum)" "Wiretap $3,125 for 30 days"
And it's a proposal not just for registrars, it'd be for registries too (which don't have a direct contractual relationship with registrants, but still need to interact with providers, at least for the URS). And the costs for registries exist, as Jonathan Frost has noted, when this topic came up last month on the mailing list. See the thread at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003263.html> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003266.html> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/003269.html> etc.
Indeed, by allowing registrars to recover costs, just like ISPs do, it'll strengthen 3.18 of the RAA.
Furthermore, this isn't "bad behaviour" -- prior to the matter being discharged by the courts, or a panel, etc., the outcome of the dispute is unknown (one can't presume the registrar's customer is guilty, based on an accusation or request; the ISP or registrar or registry is neutral, and not a party to the dispute). I don't know if we have any ISPs participating in this PDP, but they might be able to provide further data/insights.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/> _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Taking these points in order: My focus was not merely on “pure numbers,” though the numbers are telling. As I said before, I took quite some time to look at the underlying documents (call transcripts, chat transcripts and emails) to come to the conclusions that I did. The rest of this emaiul is largely a collection of scurrilous falsehoods and unsupported allegations. You’re either mistaken, misinformed or mudslinging — or some combination of the three. Inciting “tribal warfare” is a sad way 😞 to proceed, especially from someone who claims to have an idea of what would “reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re supposed to be implementing.” I didn’t know what “brigading” means, so I found this explanatory thread on Reddit (where this term seems to be used) at https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/36xhxc/ what_is_brigading_and_how_do_you_do_it/: Q: What is “brigading” and how do you do it? I have seen it getting mentioned because it violates reddit rules and people who do it get shadowbanned. Response 1: Downvote brigading, or just brigading, is when a group of users, generally outsiders to the targeted sub or community, "invade" a specific subreddit or larger community and flood it with downvotes in order to damage karma dynamics on the targeted sub. Users can also be targeted by a downvote brigade in certain situations. While it often refers to an attack that is intentionally orchestrated by the "brigade", whose members consist of separate people, it's also sometimes used to refer to sockpuppet tactics, in which people create extra user accounts for the purpose of acquiring more voting power (this in particular is very very much against reddit rules), or simply an unplanned circlejerk of downvotes against a particular user or community. Response 2: From what I understand, Brigading is when a group or members of a sub, purposely flood another sub to cause turmoil or make it seem like their side is more popular. Response 3: brigading is when you incite an invasion from one subreddit to another, to harass and vote down comments and posts. contrary to popular opinion, when people actually engage in dialogue, it's not brigading. Accusing any one or any number of people of “brigading” is clearly insulting and essentially an accusation of a violation of the Expected Standards of Behavior. In this case it is utterly false. Speaking for myself, I’m not paid to say a darn thing in this Working Group or any other Working Group. Ever. Can you say the same thing, Michael? There’s no “brigading” here, at least not in any group that I might be identified with. No “industry” put me here. The accusation inherent in talking about an industry “affording” something is trash. The image of an “industry” throwing around money to gather up a bunch of stooges who take the time to participate and contribute solely because they’re paid to be here is “fake news.” I’m here of my own free will, and my views are based on my own principles and beliefs. I think that every one of the people you are accusing can say the same thing. Most of us are volunteers. Even those whose job description requires them to be here put in far more time than they’re paid for. And they took that job because of their views, not vice versa. The idea we’re some sort of Greek chorus of puppets saying the same thing isn’t true either. There are disagreements and differences of opinion among those who support the protection of IP rights. That was clear from the transcripts I’ve read, and its clear to anyone who is trying to be fair-minded about the process. If your accusation of brigading is just an over-hyped accusation of coordinating, that should not be an issue at all. People work in groups. But I can tell you that there’s no script, no talking points memo or any “Whipping” of people into consistent positions. I’d love to hear about any coordination or meetings that you’re involved in, and who runs them — though I wouldn’t stoop to calling it “brigading.” I assume you’re sincere in your views. You should grant others the same understanding. The fact that several domain investors and their industry group are in the BC doesn’t make their position a BC position, nor is that any compelling argument for breadth of support. There are BC people on all sides of this question. Is the fact that “people in leadership positions” have supported something supposed to impress me? Should I quake in awe? People in leadership positions are no different from the rest of us. I should know. Support NCUC and NPOC (especially in its current incarnation - NPOC 4.0?) is hardly an indication of breadth of support. The fact that George joined “ALAC” (actually At Large, and more specifically NARALO, a Regional At Large Organization, but let’s not quibble) as an individual “end user” member proves even less. I’m also involved in At Large, to a fairly significant degree (though I’m participating here in my individual capacity, not as a representative of NARALO or of any At Large structure). In sum, you’ve just rattled off the usual suspects, no matter how they’re badged. As for who’s “supporting” what and what that means — you seem to have fallen prey to the issue I raised earlier, confusing and conflating support for publication with support for a proposal. Mashing them together essentially invalidates anything useful or analytic in your statement. I supported the publication of many of George’s proposals, because I thought they should receive public comment. Others you’ve lumped into your imagined “brigade” did the same thing. I’m sorry that people aren’t behaving as tribally and predictably and brigade-ly as your Grimm’s Fairy Tale would have you believe. One thing you learn when you’ve been around ICANN-land is that every group has fables about other groups, and these are assembled by taking a very small kernel of truth and then wrapping it in a massive amount of falsehoods and prejudices. Much better to deal with people as people, and you would be (pleasantly) surprised what people can ultimately support. In that vein, I would encourage you not to try and build consensus by division, as that is an oxymoron. We need to work together, and throwing around tired canards and wild accusations is just counterproductive. Peace out, Greg On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:07 PM Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I disagree with Greg’s reasoning regarding levels of support, as I think the focus on pure numbers is misleading. Just because a particular industry can afford to brigade the group with a dozen people, all of whom are essentially paid to say the same thing, does not indicate that a particular proposal has a lot of support – nor would that reasoning reflect well on the “multistakeholder model” we’re supposed to be implementing.
I think a much more telling indicator is the breadth of support, particularly across constituencies. Here’s it’s worth noting that several of George’s proposals (ALAC) have attracted support from the ICA (BC) and from people in leadership positions in both the NCUC and NPOC.
That, in my mind, reflects a broader base of support, and ultimately a greater likelihood that these proposals will attract consensus, than a proposal which attracts vehement support from the IPC but no support from outside that narrow constituency.
Best,
Michael
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed
recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about
whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying
transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements
of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear
whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I
was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our
report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in
bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as
limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals
18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate”
based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I
am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com>
wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David < dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd
f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg, Thank you for your comments. They are noted. With respect to the methodology, what the staff endeavored to do, within the limits of the available information from the record, was to describe in each instance “support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation.” Staff was not trying to describe support for the substance of the proposal. We hope that this explanation provides clarity and we apologize if we were not clear in the first instance. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 4:02 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels Julie and all, I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels. First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation. This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication. Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants. In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal. There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently. It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, in each instance, we are describing support or opposition to publication of a proposed recommendation vs. support or opposition to the substance of the proposal. Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion. On to the specific Recommendations. 12. Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here. 14/15. Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have 11 proponents. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well. 18/20. I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick. 33. Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case. Best regards, Greg P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: David, But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says: "On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added) i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... [gnso.icann.org] I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com] On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur.
I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?"
It is an issue we will face, why not get input.
To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said.
Best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
David,
I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs.
I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com> wrote:
I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change.
Best regards all, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels
Hi folks,
I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below:
A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it)
B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged.
C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented.
This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html
which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement).
Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd [gnso.icann.org] f
"Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9)
so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution).
As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others).
D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this.
E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate").
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group members,
In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel free to let us know your thoughts online.
Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the procedures, as agreed to by the WG:
“Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.”
The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these suggested levels of support:
These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment.
Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63.
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
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Greg, The number of proponents surelydoes not matter, only their affiliation does. If those eleven for Recs 14/15 were to all hail from only one SG, and the opponents from various SGs, there would be a majority opposition in the terms of the GNSO representation. Not saying it is so, just saying pure numbers need not necessarily matter as much as you seem to indicate. Best, Volker Am 17.10.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Greg Shatan:
Julie and all,
I have a couple of issues regarding the “ratings” for the proposed recommendations. Before that, I have a concern with the methodology, on two levels.
First, there is a great deal of continuing confusion in our work about whether “support” or “opposition” goes to the potential adoption of a recommendation or to the publication of a recommendation.**
This confusion extends to this document and to the underlying transcripts, chats and emails it references. Some participants were (sometimes) explicit about where they stood on both prongs, stating support for publication while remaining neutral on (or even opposing) the substance of a recommendation. In other cases, support or opposition is phrased only in connection with substance. More rarely, views focused only on publication.
Second, this document attempts to glean, from the pro-active statements of participants in these underlying materials, the level of “support” for each proposal (presumably, for publication and not necessarily substance), sometimes (but not always) including some gauging of the level of opposition. This is a flawed method, due to both the repeated ambiguity about what is being supported or opposed and to the reliance only on “squeaky wheel” analysis of the participants.
In numerous cases where support or opposition is stated, it is not clear whether this is directed toward publication or adoption of the recommendation. This creates an interpretation problem. Of course, those who support the proposal can readily be counted as supporting publication. But the opposite is not true — those stating opposition to substance cannot be read as stating opposition to publication. Indeed, in several cases, I supported publication while opposing the underlying proposal.
There is also the problem of focusing only those who spoke up. While I was reasonably active in stating my views, there were times where I supported a proposal, but I said nothing. Also, sometimes I said nothing where I opposed a proposal, because I had nothing new to add to the oppositions already put forward. If I had known that the interventions were going to be tallied and used to determine levels of support and opposition, I would have approached this entire exercise quite differently.
*It needs to be made super clear and explicit in this document and in our report whether, *_in each instance_*, we are describing support or opposition to */publication of a proposed recommendation/* vs. support or opposition to the **substance of the proposal. *Otherwise, we are doomed to confusion.
On to the specific Recommendations.
*12.* Based on the recent discussion of Recommendation #12 (“created in bad faith”) on the email list, this should be rated “limited support” rather than “adequate support,” and the parenthetical should be revised to reflect the concerns raised in this discussion. There’s no need to reiterate everything in that thread here.
*14/15.* Recommendations 14/15 appear to be incorrectly characterized as limited support, when it should be adequate support. This may be based on a misunderstanding, since the parenthetical says “proponent supports and most oppose.” These two proposals together have _11 proponents_. Clearly it’s wrong to characterize this as a lonely “proponent supports.” While 5-6 participants in the chat and transcript oppose the proposal in substance, none said outright that it should not be published. Even if you decide that also mean they oppose publication, there are still more proponents than detractors. In addition, at least one participant (David McAuley) supported publication. I will expressly support publication as well.
*18/20.* I think the document gets it right with regard to proposals 18-20. I’m shocked that anyone could think otherwise. I’ll also note that “importance” in the eyes of a proponent is clearly not a relevant yardstick.
*33.* Support for #33 should be “limited” (at best) and not “adequate” based on the chat and the email thread indicated. There are several statements of strong opposition that are undeniably directed toward the intelligibility/publication of the proposal, because (among other things) it is based on an incorrect premise (that MoUs are not contracts). I would even say, after reviewing a number of the underlying chats, transcripts and email threads, that there was more express opposition to putting this proposal forward than in virtually any other case.
Best regards,
Greg
P.S. Note that I am only concerned with the overall level of support. I am not trying to tell any particular individual what they think (sort of a “If I wanted your opinion, I’d tell it to you” exercise). Nor am I trying to “bell the cat” and use opinions written under other circumstances to discredit anyone’s views. Those things would be disruptive of our workflow, especially if done repeatedly and over the objections of those individuals.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:
David,
But, you're not just asking "What do you think?" It says:
"On behalf of Verisign, I am proposing that the WG put out for Public Comment the issue of whether the URS should become an ICANN Consensus Policy. Verisign believes that it is the appropriate time for this matter to be discussed in the Public Comment forum on the WG’s Initial Report. Sub-team developed data indicates that ***** URS in practice has proven viable, efficacious, and fit-for-purpose as a rapid remedy for clear-cut instances of protected mark abuse.****** We believe that inviting public input will be valuable, indeed essential, in informing the RPM PDP WG in its future work" (emphasis added)
i.e. it's essentally saying "It's working great", which obviously frames the issue towards "acceptance." Even in my comments on your proposal, see page 43 of the transcript of October 3, 2018:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
I said I don't support the proposal itself, but agree it can be put out for public comment. Now it seems there's some "gaming" going on, where important proposals are shoved into an annex on the same issue, because some members of this PDP are withholding support for even putting it out for public comment when they oppose a proposal, lest the public comment come back favourable towards a proposal they disagree with.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:06 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> wrote: > George, I don't agree and think that is a non-sequitur. > > I don't understand why it would follow that I support URS as consensus policy when I simply ask the public "what do you think?" > > It is an issue we will face, why not get input. > > To those who might conceivably perceive it otherwise, I say again, this is seeking public comment on the issue, not seeking a decision on it. Enough said. > > Best regards, > David > > David McAuley > Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager > Verisign Inc. > 703-948-4154 > > -----Original Message----- > From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:00 PM > To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals & Suggested Support Levels > > David, > > I don't think that's how it'll be perceived. i.e. if you "support" > proposal #31, then you support the URS becoming a consensus policy. > That's not "neutral". Furthermore, it doesn't address *elimination* of the URS for new gTLDs. > > I want to equally have the underlying issue put on the table, via a proposal that is explicit and direct (i.e. #32 is explicit about removing the URS from the new gTLDs, and *not* making it apply to legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org via a consensus policy). > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:46 PM, McAuley, David <dmcauley@verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> wrote: >> I want to reiterate (again) that my proposal re URS and legacy gTLDS is NOT a proposal that legacy gTLDs be subject to URSbut IS RATHER a proposal that we seek public comment on this matter to inform us on this issue and it will help inform Verisign on whose behalf I made the proposal. It is simply a proposal seeking comment and is definitely NOT a proposal seeking a substantive change. >> >> Best regards all, >> David >> >> David McAuley >> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. >> 703-948-4154 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George >> Kirikos >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:39 PM >> To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] List of URS Individual Proposals >> & Suggested Support Levels >> >> Hi folks, >> >> I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" >> as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below: >> >> A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" >> about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, >> and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not >> already submitted any revisions to it) >> >> B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged. >> >> C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented. >> >> This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html >> >> which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement). >> >> Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were >> presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment: >> >> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-rpm-review-10oct18-en.pd >> f >> >> "Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for >> making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had >> of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put >> into interim floor for discussion." (page 9) >> >> so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. >> I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution). >> >> As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others). >> >> D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". >> Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this. >> >> E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* >> becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of >> David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who >> *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus >> policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). >> Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate"). >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: >>> Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, >>> >>> >>> >>> In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 >>> and session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS >>> Policy and Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG >>> deliberations as recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, >>> and have produced the attached table with the staff’s suggested >>> levels of support for the individual proposals. The co-chairs believe >>> a good path forward is to allow all WG members to review and, if they >>> wish, comment upon these preliminary designations of support. For >>> those attending ICANN63, please bring your comments to our first >>> face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at >>> 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, >>> please feel free to let us know your thoughts online. >>> >>> >>> >>> Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of >>> the procedures, as agreed to by the WG: >>> >>> >>> >>> “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working >>> Group, Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial >>> Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be >>> clear, Sub Team recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, >>> subject to WG feedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to >>> be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting >>> community input; Sub Team proposals, like those from individuals, >>> will only become Final Report recommendations if they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to >>> these suggested levels of support: >>> >>> >>> >>> These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the >>> WG at ICANN63; WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the >>> suggested levels of support and in particular as to whether there are >>> any mischaracterizations; The levels of support and determination >>> with respect to inclusion in the Initial Report will be based on the >>> deliberations at ICANN63, with public comment requested on all >>> proposals that garnered adequate support; The Initial Report will >>> note for the record individual proposals that failed to achieve >>> adequate support; The WG will have the opportunity to review the >>> proposals as they appear in the draft Initial Report and propose >>> revisions before the Initial Report is published for public comment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them >>> to the WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that >>> they may be discussed at the sessions at ICANN63. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Alexander Siffrin Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
Hi George, Thank you for your comments. They are noted. Best, Julie On 10/17/18, 12:39 PM, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, I disagree with some of the designated support levels being "limited" as opposed to "adequate", i.e. some support levels aren't fully capturing the support (e.g. folks not attending calls, etc.). See comments below: A] Proposal #7 -- Legal Contact in WHOIS -- there was an "action item" about revising the proposal, but after the call I reviewed comments, and decided that no further changes were needed (that's why I've not already submitted any revisions to it) B] Proposal #8 -- adjusting the response time by 3 years for each year a domain name has been registered; I think more than just a few would support that, as it's unreasonable to expect people to respond swiftly to a complaint over a domain that has been registered for 10 or 20 years! Maybe those on the list who want to get public comments on this should speak out, as registrants are currently severely disadvantaged. C] Proposals #18, #19, and #20 (dealing with the "lack of cause of action" issue) -- I'm shocked this is described as having only "limited" support, given these are the single most important proposals I've made, tackling an important problem, and mirror the debate we had in the IGO PDP about this important "access to courts" issue. This PDP can't simply ignore the fact that all registrants in the UK, for example, can't appeal an adverse URS/UDRP ruling to the UK courts at present (if that's the mutual jurisdiction, or if they're elsewhere and the registrar is in the UK), because of the way the UDRP has been implemented. This was the problem also mentioned in the White Paper back in 1999, as was noted in the emails at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003444.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003449.html which *wasn't* properly solved by Section 4(k) of the UDRP, but which will be fixed by adopting URS Proposals #18 or #19 (#20 wouldn't completely fix it, but would be an improvement). Furthermore, the transcript of the October 10th call (when these were presented) demonstrates that Zak Muscovitch and the ICA openly supported all my proposals presented on that date to be put out for public comment: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meeti... "Zak Muscovitch for the record. First of all, thank you George for making the proposal. I want to let the working group know that all had of George's proposals are going to receive support from me to be put into interim floor for discussion." (page 9) so to suggest that only Michael K. supported #18 is flat out wrong. I'm confident others who were in the IGO PDP in the "consensus recommendation" (most, if not all, who are also members of this PDP) also support that this be put out for public comment. (i.e. #19 matches that PDP's recommendation, although #18 is superior in my view, and #20 with expansion to include US Jurisdiction was also mentioned by others as a solution). As for the "action item" to consolidate them into a single proposal, that's not possible, given the nature of the proposals (they're alternatives to each others). D] Proposal #30 -- mediation - this too was discussed in the IGO PDP and had some support there, but most said "defer to the RPM PDP". Well, now we're in the RPM PDP and we're not going to let the public weigh in on this fully (but shove it into an appendix?). I don't think so.....I think there was "adequate" support on this. E] Proposal #32 -- elimination of URS for new gTLDs, and *not* becoming a mandatory consensus policy -- this was the *opposite* of David McAuley's Proposal #31, so you would think that those who *opposed* his proposal (that the URS would become a "consensus policy") are implicitly supporters of Proposal #32 (my proposal). Given all the attempts by ICANN Staff to inject the URS into legacy TLDs (like .org, .travel, etc.), and the opposition to that when it happened, the public deserves the chance to make it clear that they want to reject the expansion of the URS into .com/net/org. Putting Propsal #32 on an even field with Proposal #31 makes sense, and I think the support level is not correct (it should be "adequate"). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: > Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, > > > > In preparation for the Working Group meetings at ICANN63, session 1 and > session 4, and in accordance with the attached Procedures for URS Policy and > Operational Recommendations, staff have reviewed the WG deliberations as > recorded in the meeting transcripts and chat rooms, and have produced the > attached table with the staff’s suggested levels of support for the > individual proposals. The co-chairs believe a good path forward is to allow > all WG members to review and, if they wish, comment upon these preliminary > designations of support. For those attending ICANN63, please bring your > comments to our first face-to-face (F2F) session on Sunday, 21 October at > 15:15-16:45 local time. For those not attending the F2F meeting, please feel > free to let us know your thoughts online. > > > > Staff took its guidance from the following excerpt from Section 7 of the > procedures, as agreed to by the WG: > > > > “Unless there is substantial material opposition within the Working Group, > Sub Team recommendations will be included in the Initial Report for the > purpose of soliciting public comment thereon. To be clear, Sub Team > recommendations have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WG feedback, of > enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in the Initial Report > for the purpose of soliciting community input; Sub Team proposals, like > those from individuals, will only become Final Report recommendations if > they achieve Full Consensus or Consensus.” > > > > The Co-Chairs would like the WG to note the following with respect to these > suggested levels of support: > > > > These are preliminary and subject to review and deliberation by the WG at > ICANN63; > WG members are encouraged to provide feedback on the suggested levels of > support and in particular as to whether there are any mischaracterizations; > The levels of support and determination with respect to inclusion in the > Initial Report will be based on the deliberations at ICANN63, with public > comment requested on all proposals that garnered adequate support; > The Initial Report will note for the record individual proposals that failed > to achieve adequate support; > The WG will have the opportunity to review the proposals as they appear in > the draft Initial Report and propose revisions before the Initial Report is > published for public comment. > > > > Finally, if WG members have revised proposals they should submit them to the > WG list no later than 23:59 UTC on Friday, 19 October so that they may be > discussed at the sessions at ICANN63. > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (9)
-
George Kirikos -
Greg Shatan -
Julie Hedlund -
Maxim Alzoba -
McAuley, David -
Michael Karanicolas -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Tattersfield -
Volker Greimann