[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> ·         The Options document was developed by members of the working group
> over multiple WG calls and there was no strong dissent to its content, much
> less a charge that it was a “a one-sided summary document prepared by
> proponents of Option C that directly attacks Options A and B, and doesn't
> show the advantages or disadvantages of all options neutrally”.

That's not correct. See the post and PDF from September 26, 2017:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000847.html

The PDF repeatedly uses the phrase "the Co-Chairs" in many of the
paragraphs of the PDF, attacking Options A and B.

I dissented to the content at:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html

The document was later updated at:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000852.html

still stating the "co-chairs" positions on various topics.  I
dissented to that document too:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000853.html

as did Paul Tattersfield:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000855.html

The document was amended one more time:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000857.html

once again, always referencing only the "co-chairs" views, who are
proponents of Option C.

How can one honestly portray that as a document that was neutral?

Then the "background documents" linked to with the survey:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000869.html

contains that same document, dated October 12, 2017:

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

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms?preview=/71599851/71602970/Options%20Proposal%20for%20WG%20Discussion%20-%20updated%2012%20Oct%202017.pdf

once again putting forth the "co-chairs" views front and center.

> ·         The Options document is a summary of the contents and effect of
> the Options, not a brief for or against any of them. I completely reject
> your allegation that it attacks Options A and B; rather, it simply and
> accurately states what they are.

That's not a credible statement. Did you actually read the document
that you wrote? It's a direct attack against options A and B in the
"preliminary notes" section of the document, and then later presents
all three options. Are you now disavowing what you wrote?

> ·         Notwithstanding the now allegedly biased nature of the Options
> document, you had no problem immediately completing the survey and sharing
> your vigorous advocacy for Options A and B on the same day the survey began.
> (Likewise, in response I shared my personal view, based in large part upon
> three years of service on GNSO Council, as well as participation in the
> Board/GAC/GNSO discussions on IGO issues, that those Options had little or
> no chance of being approved by Council and were inconsistent with the
> bedrock principles that have guided our work.)

Yes, I believe all responses should be public and transparent,
especially given this is an ongoing debate, and minds should still be
open to be changed. Unlike your "personal views" that are reflected in
the Options document itself, those of others who actually prefer other
options are not in the options document.

Furthermore, the "secret survey" that is being kept confidential is
still being shared with the co-chairs, presumably (since it's being
used to inform their future statements at the next ICANN meeting). The
Co-chairs are supposed to have only an *administrative* role, e.g.
arranging meeting times, and other grunt work of that nature. By
getting preferential access to the survey results, available to no
other PDP members, the co-chairs are then permitted to do their own
advocacy to those members without a level playing field. The co-chairs
should have no "information advantage" compared with other members due
to their purely administrative role.

> ·         I note that Imran’s email states  “Option C is well elaborated and
> reader can understand that  what is being asked by him. May I ask to update
> the questions for  ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ with some additional detail?”
> While I don’t believe that Option A requires the same amount of detail as
> Option C, Imran now has the benefit of your further explanation below, in
> addition to your advocacy statement of Monday, and can make a decision
> accordingly.

That assumes Imran (and/or others) hadn't already filled out the
survey by the time I posted, or that no other member of the PDP who
already submitted the survey had an opportunity to read all the
arguments, instead of the one-sided positions put forth by the
co-chairs.

> As for WG members who have been unable to participate in calls due to
> schedule conflicts, we cannot postpone our final work indefinitely until
> their calendars clear. And every member has full access to the email list,
> mp3 recordings, and meeting transcripts to keep up with the discussion and
> inform themselves.

Perhaps a fresh Doodle poll should be conducted, to attempt to
accommodate those (like Paul Keating) who've had persistent conflicts
with the current Thursday time slot. That time slot was created ages
ago, and might not accurately reflect availability of those who still
need to understand all the arguments and ask questions in real-time.

Sincerely,

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