[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C

[Corwin, Philip]

I have just boarded a plane. I will respond in full over the weekend.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 17, 2017, at 4:23 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com<mailto:icann at leap.com>> wrote:

Hello,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>> wrote:
This co-chair categorically reject your reckless charge that I have engaged in "fear-mongering".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering

"Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and
exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of
purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.[1][2][3]
This can take the form of psychological manipulation that uses
fear-based tactics (scare tactics) including exaggeration and usually
repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired
outcome.[citation needed] It is a tactic used to scare or put fear
into those viewing a campaign/advertisement and influence the outcome
based on fear."

You've repeatedly used the "Thelma and Louise" metaphor,

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000872.html

driving off a cliff, that the entire report would get rejected if
Option C wasn't selected. These aren't "new facts" or "new analysis"
being used to push Option C. They're fear and politics, plain and
simple. The "art of the possible", as though this is a negotiation,
rather a truth-seeking exercise. I'm not the only one that recognizes
this -- see the messages by Paul Keating and Mike Rodenbaugh
yesterday:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000905.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000906.html

Please stick to the substance ands stop making reckless and unfounded allegations about others' motivations.

When I have in the past, you've said that:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000877.html

"I am not going to even begin to attempt  a point-by-point response to
your extremely long message."

My message you refer to:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000876.html

is 1,908 words, according to http://Wordcounter.net. According to http://Medium.com,
the average adult reads at 275 Words Per Minute:

https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/214991667-Read-time

so apparently a 7 minute long article is "extremely long". Of course,
many of us have above average in reading skill, given our higher
education, etc. Lawyers (I'm not one) should have especially high
reading skills. I contrast those 7 minutes with PDP conference calls
that go for 90 minutes week after week after week for 3 years. A claim
that those 7 minutes of reading time would make it an "extremely long
message" doesn't seem correct to me.

But, let me try to make it easy......just respond to these specific questions:

1. The October 12, 2017 "Options Document" (edited to remove that
"error" above) is at:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms

The very first paragraph claims that:

" Other options that were discussed previously by the Working Group
have not been included in this proposal based on the co-chairs’
assessment either that their essential elements have been adapted and
incorporated into Options A, B, and/or C (below), or that they were
based on an incomplete reading of the applicable rules (i.e. the
previous Option 5)."

Where is Option 6 adapted and incorporated into Option C? Here's a
reminder of what Option 6 was:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html

I assert that the options document mislead the working group by
falsely stating that Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into the
Option C. Yes or no? If Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into
Option C, show us where it is in that document.

[while I acknowledge I've been invited to resubmit Option 6 again to
this PDP, I want you to acknowledge that the edited October 12, 2017
document makes that false claim above, and thus mislead the working
group]

2. There is a long preface (the entire first page of that October 12th
document, and the first paragraph of the 2nd page) criticizing Options
A and B. Show me just a single statement that is negative towards
Option C in that document that was prepared as "co-chairs" (not as
individual members with a viewpoint). If you can't identify a single
negative statement towards Option C, how is that not a biased
document, and a misuse of the positions as co-chairs?

I think those are enough, for now. I wouldn't want to make this email
"too long" (under 700 words, so that's less than 3 minutes reading
time for an average adult). The answers should be illuminating to this
group.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171117/3d6142a7/attachment-0001.html>