[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
icann at leap.com
Mon Dec 18 19:17:17 UTC 2017
How is it that the only "poll" is with regards to Recommendation #3,
yet you are somehow able to determine a level of consensus without any
poll on Recommendation #4, when multiple folks have spoken out against
ICANN providing subsidies for IGOs in their URS/UDRP complaints? What
magical process will you use to determine preliminary level of
consensus for the other recommendations that you refuse to also apply
to Rec #3?
Also, how do you explain that we've reached a process that ICANN's
guidelines describe as "rare"? I don't see a good reason for invoking
a procedure that the guidelines discourage. If the use of the poll is
"reasonable", then provide us with the reasoning. The statement in
Mary's email that "further discussion is unlikely to....sway the view
of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail"
implies that the "poll" is going to be used as a final VOTE, which the
guidelines explicitly warn about.
The guidelines are pretty clear that even if a poll is "reasonable",
it should happen "after several iterations" (of the prior steps
described on page 9). Yet, none of those steps have even happened yet!
The guidelines even say: "However, in all other cases.....their name
must be explicitly linked, ****especially in those cases where polls
where (sic) taken.****" (emphasis added) which is NOT consistent with
Furthermore, multiple "members" of this PDP don't even have any SOI
posted, despite that being the "price" of membership --- how is it
those members are going to now be allowed to anonymously participate
in a poll, despite not being allowed to even be members in the first
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> The co-chairs have carefully reviewed the GNSO WG Guidelines, have consulted
> with ICANN policy staff, and are confident that the outlined procedure is
> fully consistent with the Guidelines and our responsibilities.
> As described in our message, the poll is being taken to assist the co-chairs
> in proposing consensus levels for the options relating to recommendation 3.
> Once we publish our proposed classifications it will be subject to open,
> non-anonymous discussion and potential modification by the full WG before the Final report is locked down and transmitted to Council.
> Philip S. Corwin
> Policy Counsel
> VeriSign, Inc.
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:40 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal
> for moving forward to determining consensus
> I just want to go on the record that I disagree with this proposed
> procedure. I outlined some of those reasons previously:
> The ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour document states that members
> "Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions
> to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The
> ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy
> development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take
> responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build
> consensus with other participants."
> An anonymous poll does not reflect any attempts by those responding to it to
> "work to build consensus". It's an abdication of one's responsibilities.
> Furthermore, that document states that members
> "Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy
> development and decision-making processes."
> An anonymous poll is diametrically opposed to that transparency, and
> I mentioned previously I'm reading the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, and
> one of the topics he talks about is transparency in
> "1.3 Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand and
> no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up.
> Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best
> answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by
> creating an atmosphere in which everyone's first thought is to ask:
> "Is it true?"
> (a) Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is a
> responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and "fight for
> right" but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just
> like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What
> you're not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately -- either to
> others or in your own head. If you can't fulfill this obligation, then you
> must go." (page 329)
> Those who oppose a certain option should be open about it, and explain their
> reasoning openly. They should "speak up, own it, or get out."
> They should also keep an open mind so that they listen to other viewpoints,
> and potentially have their own positions changed through a two-way dialog.
> Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a path forward which is designed to
> cement divisions, rather than reconciling them.
> George Kirikos
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter
>> Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
>> It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the
>> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO
>> successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have
>> reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have
>> been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is
>> unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or
>> sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should
>> Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
>> If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral
>> discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a
>> final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were
>> presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held
>> in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG
>> members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be
>> included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December
>> 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you
>> believe a call on December 21st is needed.
>> On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The
>> purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the
>> level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will
>> ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their
>> preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members
>> will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that
>> preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These
>> comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options,
>> as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide.
>> Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will
>> be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will
>> remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of
>> the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and
> will be included as a section of our Final Report.
>> Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then
>> share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus
>> that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG
>> on January 11th,
>> 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs' evaluation.
>> The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to
>> provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final
>> consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be
>> determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as
>> that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG
>> review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG
>> members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our
>> Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet
>> the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for
> its February 22nd meeting.
>> Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure.
>> Thank you.
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp