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

[George Kirikos]

Hello,

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> Thank you for that retraction, George.
>
> I am once again headed to the airport and may have a further response once back home.

Let's focus on facts, questions and answers to arrive at the truth. I
asked several in prior emails that received no response:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000914.html

[1] " 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."

Aside: I'll happily resubmit my Option 6 (no idea why I have to
resubmit it, since it's already on the record) once the co-chairs
fully acknowledge it was taken off the table, despite the document
claiming it was incorporated into those new options.

[2]...."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?"

And from:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000917.html

[3, a brand new number assigned for convenience]

"I leave Option C backers with this question --- do you acknowledge
that under Option C, arbitration panels might make different rulings
than a court would??? Yes or no.

If the answer is "Yes", explain to us why that should be acceptable to
domain name registrants?"

And one that has been implied by the last emails:

[4] Isn't it a fact that "Option C" leave IGOs *worse off* than the
status quo of doing "nothing"? How is that consistent with the
so-called "reasoning" of that group of not singling out IGOs for
disparate treatment?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/