Claudio, thanks for your email. All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Individual+Proposal+%23... Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26 Hi all, I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration. From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal). I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation). As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so. In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review. Cheers, Claudio On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4K... The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17. Brief introduction: * This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting. * Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP * Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC * Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent. * Under each proposal, there are two sections: 1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary: * “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal. * If the WG decides not to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”. 2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation. The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

Phil, Thanks for these helpful thoughts. I wanted to put a marker down because I wasn’t on the call and the decision-making obviously needs to be inclusive, utilize the list, etc. - so that’s was the intend of the note last night. But yes, of course I can provide further thinking to support my position on next steps.

From my point of view, this proposal shouldn’t create an iota of controversy, as it helps address an ongoing problem (the malicious bulk registration of domains, including some used for DNS Abuse), it represents an improvement over the status quo, and helps the URS serve it’s intended purpose while helping all parties in the process save resources.

More specifically, to address the bad-faith registration of domains under a very limited and specific fact pattern, the exact contours of which shall be determined by the jurisprudence of the policy (in other words, the panelist should have some limited discretion to hear the case and the current rule should not be baked into the URS Procedures (preventing these cases from ever being considered) - where it stands out like a sore thumb. That’s all the proposal seeks to unwind - a rigid rule that is currently hard-coded into the URS Procedures, and to provide the URS Providers options to address these cases, where they feel appropriate, in a unified manner when they occur (as similarly under the UDRP). A hard-coded rule like the current rule baked into the URS Procedures, restricting all and every “unrelated” complainant from ever bringing a unified complaint - no matter what the factual circumstances of the case is simply counter-logical and counter-productive. The public comments reflect the URS Providers are open to the proposal (I understand you quote WIPO, who is not a URS Provider), so I think we should hear more from the URS Providers after changes are made to the proposal. In practice, the proposal would apply to a very limited set of factual circumstances (which is why I referenced Paul’s quote and the appearance of his potential misunderstanding) and why this should be further discussed and considered for WG adoption. The proposal, as drafted now, is subject to broad over-interpretation and misunderstanding - I believe this is reflected in some of the public comments themselves. It’s intended applicability is actually quite limited, but to an observer that is not clear from the direct text of the proposal itself, hence the need for revisions. Also, I’m not sure if your summary of the public comments is your personal summary, or something more formalized, but in either case, I think it overstates the counting of the jelly beans and what inferences should be drawn from that exercise. The contracted party stakeholder groups do not oppose, as this can bring potential efficiencies for them; the BC and IPC support, the URS Providers appear open and other individual companies also support (in fact, more than than the one company that you named that expressed some reservation.) Please allow me some time and I can revert back with a deeper analysis of the public comments, if needed, but I hope that is not necessary to move things forward. Based on the merits, this proposal should not be discarded out of hand; some edits/changes can be made to bring much needed clarity, then it should be discussed further by the WG at that time. Cheers, Claudio On Friday, June 26, 2020, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:

Claudio:

Thank you for your input.

URS Individual Proposal #6 seems quite clear, with little room to misunderstand its intent and purpose—

*URS Individual Proposal #6*

*The recommendation is to permit multiple unrelated Complainants to bring a single Complaint jointly against a single domain name registrant (or related registrants) who has registered multiple domain names, by deleting the following procedural element within Section 1.1.3 of the URS Procedure: *

*"One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant, but only if the companies complaining are related.” (emphasis added)*

About 30% of the 55 individuals/entities that provided public comments did not do so on this proposal. Of the 70% that did comment, about 45% opposed and about 25% supported in some fashion, about a 2-1 ratio of opposition to support (I realize that we don’t count these comments as if they are votes, and that we also consider where entities speak for multiple individuals and/or companies – but still, the proposal appears to lack broad support while garnering substantial opposition) . WIPO expressed significant concern; Com Laude and MARQUES opposed outright; and, as you noted, individuals strongly identified with trademark rights advocacy opined that the proposal should go no further during the full WG discussion that you missed.

Personally, I do not see the slightest scintilla of a prospect that this proposal as framed can gain consensus support in our coming consensus call; and the procedure we are now operating under is designed to identify those proposals which can go to that call without change, those which may clear the hurdle if proponents can come back with significant changes that take community and WG member views into account, and those that have no prospect of gaining consensus even with modifications and should not take any more of the WG’s limited time between now and our mid-September/October target date. This proposal clearly fell into the third category.

In your email you state, “this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so.” I would agree completely that WG members who are strongly for or against a proposal should strive to participate in the meeting that discusses it, and that is why we give substantial advance notice of which proposals are scheduled for discussion, and then send reminders with the same information as the meeting approaches.

If you believe that there is some way in which this proposal to let multiple unrelated complainants bring a single joint complaint against a single registrant can be revised in a manner to achieve that purpose and have a substantial prospect of gaining consensus support within the WG I invite you to share such revision for consideration. Short of that, in the opinion of this co-chair Proposal 6 is DOA and will not be discussed further per the decision agreed to by WG members on the call in which it was discussed.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way <https://www.google.com/maps/search/12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190...> Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *McGrady, Paul D. *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 9:19 AM *To:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>; Ariel Liang < ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

Claudio, thanks for your email.

All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+ Individual+Proposal+%236 <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1IkSoeYzRg6yqq6TErYGKUl5isAlETMCrSMQxARc704XEim...>

Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it.

Best,

Paul

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

*From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

Hi all,

I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration.

From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal).

I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation).

As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so.

In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review.

Cheers,

Claudio

On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Working Group members,

Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17.

*Brief introduction:*

- This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting.

- Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/ meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1YKmLSYneNE70gSOgCjl20_iNrE1zoaCjgAiOrHMeYh9lUh...> - Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1HL2IMgGT-AJjLUzSoMDHGgboFoj-H2bD4EJur3eGlMQMyM...>

- Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent. - Under each proposal, there are two sections:

1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary:

- “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal. - If the WG decides *not* to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”.

2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation.

The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list.

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

Claudio: “Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here.” That is not correct. Unlike the WG recommendations in the Initial Report, which had broad support and minimal opposition, the individual proposals did not have WG backing, and were put out for comment to gauge community support/opposition and whether they should go forward, in initial or revised form, for consensus call consideration. My personal presumption was that the great majority of individual proposals would not move forward, and I have actually been surprised that after comment review some number will or may get further consideration. But that is not the case for URS #6, as there was broad agreement after review of community input that it had no realistic chance to garner consensus support. As I stated in my earlier email today, “If you believe that there is some way in which this proposal to let multiple unrelated complainants bring a single joint complaint against a single registrant can be revised in a manner to achieve that purpose and have a substantial prospect of gaining consensus support within the WG I invite you to share such revision for consideration. Short of that, in the opinion of this co-chair Proposal 6 is DOA and will not be discussed further per the decision agreed to by WG members on the call in which it was discussed.” Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:35 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26 Paul, Actually, I believe you have things backwards here. The default operating procedure is to promote more inclusion, not less and not exclude members from decision-making because they missed a phone call or a meeting. That’s why we have the list and the open and inclusive operating procedures. Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here. Finally, I didn’t assert that you misunderstood the proposal, merely that it appeared to me that you did based on your summary statement. We can get into the merits at a later stage, but I hope no offense was taken, as none was intended - I know you are very smart guy! Cheers, Claudio On Friday, June 26, 2020, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> wrote: Claudio, thanks for your email. All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Individual+Proposal+%236<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lYs_kXykg5dqAYwhfAcnznIQ8YqmbHOe5b7Eqqq5SqJuXh-2yH9X9DPg30IEHLKHU0_S2TuUR-4ScuGRU1heNKOGoLhFkZDA-lzYOtFxey_P_BY3U2jTQFS9q-ixD5KVPlp5dp7OkVpW8NstQrddtVgFMBW_mN-ckuehl9OZ3QjbQFiejFGnWoK_GzSj7l1wLkKlObEAqJCvju7MrhRnfUiw1_dXyvfJqbQ1LmfBtPqwvy-deJscN6UO-dCGs7i4YwWmUenGEAbxSIjxhMDOyw/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2FURS%2BIndividual%2BProposal%2B%25236> Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26 Hi all, I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration. From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal). I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation). As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so. In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review. Cheers, Claudio On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4K... The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17. Brief introduction: * This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting. * Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hAxjVWDW16z7HCPA-IWN8C4xuMEuUoVL7cbOPEPWIdSW5tk6IokvV_xGrpF6m-d36j8RlHB784PAMmm9yqYRRQonlhIIRzGCuN8_Wj7PLcHR2DqazlLFos1IQ-EWPp-5049CUMJnHpPGTVhb1afcVweeyu8qKTKAK51RAM3icsjFrSk8kN-0XxmGSYw8sRr7bn3r6pUq3zQxVdlXWuEz8Ew31Lq8F_9y_UOJ55GfH3ZCoQb6zqVw2z-tJjmVebYkmK8453XDDgEm1ij5zqDoSaaqFwemF912tWGeS0KQBZI/https%3A%2F%2F68.schedule.icann.org%2Fmeetings%2F4h27u2A9rBqt8annP> * Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ujFn4O60g6BlFlEKQGIGGxL5RHVLVLCkiVaELqIlC5FE3llxfQn7Cos9CXO86MaSCxMT8--rT2jrOniXJOORiIv_6_pZMqK7aG3G3nye4CroyZlOK0v_AVlMmpd_j8M5Wvl-l6XoXlhePeb6NGxUCJR6hbNVeAPW0i3UrnK43DPDUyAL8HzmPjSuzoMQND4RG6ynDxvRlOXOCmtWfHfCykKa2gt9qMOpj-2rBKnShM_j4BytucfKLkqwDsDacktd1P4ckEbAgOSfF27t_4nUrA/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2F9YBIC> * Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent. * Under each proposal, there are two sections: 1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary: * “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal. * If the WG decides not to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”. 2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation. The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

Phil, Just to clarify, my statement to Paul (which you quoted in your reply) was to express the notion that final conclusions were not reached based on who was able to join the last meeting. What percentage of WG members joined that meeting (I honestly don’t know); if a meaningful number where not able to participate, that needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the level of consensus. The WG Guidelines promote an open and inclusive process, so any WG member who wants to make comments on the list are encouraged to make them so the views of the full WG are incorporated. Those comments are to be considered, on subsequent calls, on equal footing with any comments made during a prior meeting. In other words, my point was the issue is not closed and shouldn’t be closed until everyone is able to weigh in. But just as importantly, until my comments (as the proponent) are weighed in their proper context, which is especially important here where the proposal was not fully understood or appreciated. As I noted, I could have clarified a lot of this misinformation had I been able to join the prior meeting (I have not yet reviewed the entire transcript, which I can do so later if need be). Finally, as I previously expressed, I disagree with how the discussion on Proposal 6 was teed up by presenting the results of the public comments disfavorably in a quantitative 2-1 analysis “against”. I’m not sure if this was based on the staff, the subteam work product, personal comments, or some combination thereof, but either way I disagree with this straightforward description or assessment of the public comments. So while I’m left confused as to who calculated the “2–1” number, and why it was presented that way, it is not as important to me at the moment. Putting the numbers aside, it’s more important to read what the comments actually say, and whether solutions can be developed to address the stated concerns. Some comments expressed flat-out opposition, but many did not, and that’s my point. This is a good example of where, on certain topics, public comments are more nuanced. And generally speaking they should be considered qualitatively and on the merits. For example, some commentators selected “Do No Support” but then provided comments reflecting openness to the idea if certain conditions are satisfied, or expressed concerns that I would describe as conditional, and then indicated “Significant Change Required” in order to reach the level of agreement. Moreover, since some comments are based on a small, but important, misunderstanding of the proposal, for that reason alone, I think Significant Change Required can be achieved to meet some of the expressed concerns (at least for some of the commenters) along with other reasons. And there were plenty of comments in support from major stakeholders groups representing large numbers of members. That’s why I believe the level of opposition (as described in the public comments) was overstated or misstated. That, of course, is going to influence the WG discussion that takes place after that assessment is made. But what’s done is done. I believe you are saying at least something similar when you invited my open comments on why this topic should remain open for the time being, so I very much appreciate that gesture. I don’t want to digress too much, just wanted to clarify certain points. Cheers, Claudio On Friday, June 26, 2020, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:

Claudio:

“Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here.”

That is not correct. Unlike the WG recommendations in the Initial Report, which had broad support and minimal opposition, the individual proposals did not have WG backing, and were put out for comment to gauge community support/opposition and whether they should go forward, in initial or revised form, for consensus call consideration. My personal presumption was that the great majority of individual proposals would not move forward, and I have actually been surprised that after comment review some number will or may get further consideration.

But that is not the case for URS #6, as there was broad agreement after review of community input that it had no realistic chance to garner consensus support. As I stated in my earlier email today, “If you believe that there is some way in which this proposal to let multiple unrelated complainants bring a single joint complaint against a single registrant can be revised in a manner to achieve that purpose and have a substantial prospect of gaining consensus support within the WG I invite you to share such revision for consideration. Short of that, in the opinion of this co-chair Proposal 6 is DOA and will not be discussed further per the decision agreed to by WG members on the call in which it was discussed.”

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin

Policy Counsel

VeriSign, Inc.

12061 Bluemont Way <https://www.google.com/maps/search/12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190...> Reston, VA 20190

703-948-4648/Direct

571-342-7489/Cell

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> * On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 2:35 PM *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

Paul,

Actually, I believe you have things backwards here. The default operating procedure is to promote more inclusion, not less and not exclude members from decision-making because they missed a phone call or a meeting. That’s why we have the list and the open and inclusive operating procedures.

Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here.

Finally, I didn’t assert that you misunderstood the proposal, merely that it appeared to me that you did based on your summary statement. We can get into the merits at a later stage, but I hope no offense was taken, as none was intended - I know you are very smart guy!

Cheers,

Claudio

On Friday, June 26, 2020, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> wrote:

Claudio, thanks for your email.

All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+ Individual+Proposal+%236 <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lYs_kXykg5dqAYwhfAcnznIQ8YqmbHOe5b7Eqqq5SqJuXh...>

Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it.

Best,

Paul

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

*From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26

Hi all,

I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration.

From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal).

I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation).

As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so.

In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review.

Cheers,

Claudio

On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Working Group members,

Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit?usp=sharing The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17.

*Brief introduction: *

- This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting.

- Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/ meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1hAxjVWDW16z7HCPA-IWN8C4xuMEuUoVL7cbOPEPWIdSW5t...> - Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ujFn4O60g6BlFlEKQGIGGxL5RHVLVLCkiVaELqIlC5FE3l...>

- Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent. - Under each proposal, there are two sections:

1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary:

- “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal. - If the WG decides *not* to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”.

2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation.

The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list.

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel

Claudio, Thanks for this note. We all know that email is a difficult medium for conveying tone. No harm done. Stay safe! Best, Paul From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 3:13 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26 All, I want to apologize to Paul, Phil, and anyone else on the record that I may have referenced in my recent emails. I think the tone/tenor of my messages could have been a lot nicer and given people more of the benefit of the doubt of terms of process-making decisions. I realized this after I sent the messages.. I know no one is trying to silence debate, but my messages may have come across as if I was inferring or implying that was the case. Happy Sunday everyone! Cheers, Claudio On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:34 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Actually, I believe you have things backwards here. The default operating procedure is to promote more inclusion, not less and not exclude members from decision-making because they missed a phone call or a meeting. That’s why we have the list and the open and inclusive operating procedures. Your reference to “revisit items already handled” and to “reopening” speaks as if final conclusions have already been reached, when I believe that is no where near the case here. Finally, I didn’t assert that you misunderstood the proposal, merely that it appeared to me that you did based on your summary statement. We can get into the merits at a later stage, but I hope no offense was taken, as none was intended - I know you are very smart guy! Cheers, Claudio On Friday, June 26, 2020, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> wrote: Claudio, thanks for your email. All, here is a link to the proposal that Claudio is talking about: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Individual+Proposal+%23... Three Co-chairs, while I do not believe it is a good idea to revisit items already handled because their proponent was not on a call, that choice is yours. However, please do not feel pressure to reopen it based upon Claudio’s assertion that I misunderstood the proposal. I assure you that I understand it. Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 12:21 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Public Comment Analysis Summary Document - URS Proposals 1-3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 22, 26 Hi all, I wasn’t on this call when Proposal #6 was discussed by the WG for potential preservation for further WG consideration. From my reading of the transcript, and the summary of the public comments as produced/reviewed by staff and the sub-teams, there appears to be a major misunderstanding of the intent of proposal #6. I have a sense that folks think the proposal is seeking to do a lot more than what it is actually seeking to accomplish (perhaps based on the wording of the proposal). I am basing my interpretation of this confusion on the following: 1) my personal review of the public comments; 2) the apparent assessment made by Paul McGrady that the proposal should “die on the vine” - based on a rationale that I believe reflects a misunderstanding of the proposal (in contrast, it terms of the CSG constituencies, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC); and 3) during this last WG meeting, the analysis comments made by Phil as co-chair concerning the analysis of the public comments (which, as I stated above, many of the public comments appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the proposal); and 4) the comments made by Lori along the lines of “let’s put this proposal out it’s misery” (in contrast, the proposal is supported by the IPC and BC, and is based on a previous INTA recommendation). As an aside, this experience leaves me with the sense that if a proponent isn’t on a call for an individual proposal discussion, and it’s easy to skip on to the next, it probably a good idea to do so. In conclusion, I am expecting/hoping to get a chance to clarify the confusion on this proposal on the next call and for the time being to leave this item open for further review. Cheers, Claudio On Thursday, June 25, 2020, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Please find a public comment analysis document which encapsulates/summarizes the Working Group’s deliberations on the public comments for individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4K... The updated content for URS Proposals #1, #2, #3, #6, #11, #13, #15, #22, and #26 are on pages 1-12, 14-17. Brief introduction: * This document is not meant to replace the Working Group’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting. * Tue, 23 June session: https://68.schedule.icann.org/meetings/4h27u2A9rBqt8annP * Thu, 25 June session: https://community.icann.org/x/9YBIC * Each proposal section includes its full language (in the yellow box), as well as the rationale provided by the original proponent. * Under each proposal, there are two sections: 1) Public Comment Deliberation Summary: * “WG Initial Deliberation Summary” contains the summary of the current round of public comment review by the WG, including any action item/decision by the WG regarding the individual proposal. * If the WG decides not to preserve the proposal for further deliberation/consensus call, the summary is recorded under “WG Final Deliberation Summary”. 2) Final Recommendation Language Derived from the Individual Proposal (If Applicable): this section will include the recommendation language if an individual proposal gains consensus to become a WG final recommendation. The update of this document will be ongoing. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel