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

Fri Nov 17 23:22:12 UTC 2017

Dear George,

I think you have made it continuously clear that you are in favour of Option A. And, as a WG member, you are of course free to explain why you voted for Option A.

However, the fact is that we not just only have a clear majority support for Option C (9 supports and 2 that can live with it), compared to Option A (5 supports and 1 that can live with it), it is also clear that there is a majority against Option A (8 does not support), compared to Option C (3 does not support).

This is not just Philip’s and mine arguments, it is the pure fact.

I can fully understand that, as in all voting cases, it may sometimes be hard to understand why a majority has other thoughts about a specific topic.

And all WG members had (and have) their freedom to further explain and argue their support for a specific solution/option. As you say George, sometimes a support for one specified option needs more detailed explanation, where other options may be more clear, "fair and balanced".

As to Option 6: As you may recall, you have made the presentation during our WG meetings, and we (the full WG) have discussed it. As you also may recall, the conclusion within our WG meetings was that not all courts would accept that, independently of what the parties have agreed upon. During last call, we invited you to - during the upcoming week – provide us (the WG) with your suggestion on your proposed specific solution to be added to the current description of the arbitration option for consideration by the WG.

I therefore look forward your specific wording / suggestion on that topic.

All the best,

Petter

-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

17 november 2017 20:16:33 +01:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>:

> I think the comments within this survey are quite telling. Those who
> are in favour of option A (and opposing option C) have very strong and
> fully considered views, which they can explain and support with facts
> and reasoning. Compare that to those expressing support for C (and
> opposing A/B). They make statements like:
> 
> "Fair and balanced" (supporting C)
> "DOA at Council" (opposing A)
> 
> bereft of credible reasoning.
> 
> This demonstrates that it's fear-mongering by the co-chairs and
> political motivations that led some to switch from Option 1 (now
> Option A) to Option C (formerly Option 2), rather than anything based
> on new facts or new analysis. Given this, it explains the refusal by
> the co-chairs to attach names to those who are supporting Option C --
> there's no expectation of privacy here --- everyone must vote publicly
> when it comes down to a final consensus call, and should have been
> able to publicly explain why they supported Option C in this
> preliminary survey.
> 
> In the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio that I'm reading, he writes
> about how decisions at Bridgewater go through what's called
> "believability-weighted decision making", see some discussion of that
> at:
> 
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-ray-dalio-legacy-2017-9>
> 
> I think that is a wise approach, whereby votes that are backed by
> sound logic, facts, experience, and reasoning should be weighted much
> higher than votes that lack those attributes and which are instead
> fear-driven and thus are not believable.
> 
> It's been said that "One man with courage makes a majority." Hopefully
> it does not have to come to that.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> <http://www.leap.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Mary Wong <<mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > As noted on the Working Group call yesterday, please find attached the
> > consolidated results of the informal poll that was conducted regarding
> > Working Group member preferences as among Options A, B and C.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Individual Working Group members – especially those who provided specific
> > comments as part of their poll response – are invited to add any relevant
> > background and further thoughts to this email.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks and cheers
> > 
> > Mary
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> > <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
> > _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> 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/20171118/86261557/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171118/86261557/attachment-0001.jpe>