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

Sat Oct 21 00:10:55 UTC 2017

Dear all WG members,
Initially, I repeat and support Philip’s comments.
We have in fact discussed the Options and the Survey several times on our WG meetings.
I have, so far, avoided replying to the e-mail comments filed after the start of the Survey, as I wanted to see a neutral period where all WG members could reply to the survey without interruption of discussions on the topics.
As you all can see on the Survey, there are places to comment on each of the three options, and may I suggest that all voting WG members use that possibility so that we can collect them and refer to them when studying the result of the Survey.
As to the information / presentation of each option, we have in fact discussed them on our WG meetings prior to the survey, and we have – as an example – re-phrased Option A based on George’s input/suggestions, before the Survey was finalized and sent to the WG.
I also think it is in fact included in Philip’s and my mission as Co-Chairs to indicate which solution is most likely to be accepted by the Council, Board and IGO/GAC. Then it is up to each WG member to make your own decision, vote on that/those, and make your notes/comments in the Survey.
May I also remind all WG members, that we are trying to solve an international problem/topic, that is not focused on US practice or even less pointing to any specific US judge.
As an example, last time I saw the list of WIPO Domain Name Panelists, 110 was from USA, 19 from Canada, and 346 from 57 other countries around the world. And, at least 28 IGO’s are based outside USA (main part in Geneva, Switzerland).

So, based on what we have discussed during our WG meetings, please use the Survey for your vote and comments.

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

20 oktober 2017 02:50:55 +02:00, skrev Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:

> George:
> 
> 
> The survey that WG members are being asked to respond to is neutral and descriptive and never once mentions the co-chairs or their views. I mistakenly referred to it as the Options document in my prior email when I was thinking of the actual survey that members were asked to respond to.
> 
> 
> In light of that honest error, I have just again reviewed the " REMAINING OPTIONS FOR WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION 12 October 2017" and believe that the majority of its language is likewise neutral and descriptive, with the exception of the language reproduced below. This language states the informed view of the co-chairs. I believe we would have been remiss not to share our concerns with WG members.
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the co-chairs have permitted proponents of Option A and B and detractors of Option C – most especially you -- to vigorously and repeatedly state their own views, and have never attempted to suppress any such expression. We have included all remaining options in the survey for members to choose among. Any WG member who has been paying even a modicum of attention to the discussions of the past few weeks should be completely familiar with the pro and con arguments for all three options and capable of making an informed decision.
> 
> 
> Hence I reject any suggestion that we have operated this WG in a manner that has not accorded every member his or her full rights and allowed all points of view to be expressed. The co-chairs are responsible for administering this WG in an efficient and fair manner and I believe we have fulfilled that responsibility. But the co-chairs have not taken a vow of silence that precludes us from sharing our personal views with the members of the WG, especially when they concur that a particular outcome could jeopardize our entire work product.
> 
> 
> Finally, there is no secret survey. We will share the results of it with WG members as soon as it closes, just as we shall share them in Abu Dhabi.
> 
> 
> Now here is the language in the Options document expressing the joint views of the co-chairs. Again, if a majority of the members of this WG believe that its inclusion, in the context of all the other statements that have been made regarding the three options in the course of WG discussions and email traffic, violated our duties as co-chairs then I for one will be happy to step aside and let others complete this task.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> The co-chairs note that they have retained Option A (known previously as Option 1) for discussion
> because it is an option that several Working Group members have supported. However, the co-chairs
> wish to reiterate that in their view Option A is an inappropriate departure from our prior decision that
> ICANN should avoid taking any position that seeks to limit the legal rights or prejudge the outcome of
> any judicial proceeding, and is subject to strong criticism as it would vitiate a prior UDRP finding of
> cybersquatting by a domain registrant upon an IGO’s successful assertion of an immunity defense (The
> Co-Chairs recognize that although there may be examples where UDRP panels have reached incorrect
> decisions, that the best means to address such error is through judicial appeal, or appeal via arbitration
> as proposed in Option C). The Co-chairs further observe that Option A would leave IGOs in a worse
> position than they would be under the status quo (successful assertion of judicial immunity would
> remove the stay on enforcement of the prior UDRP decision), and as this would leave the IGO with no
> further available remedy, under these mechanisms, against the alleged cybersquatting, it is highly
> unlikely to be approved by the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board, especially as this PDP was chartered
> to evaluate whether and how access to the UDRP and URS could be improved for IGOs and INGOs.
> The Co-Chairs further believe that Option B is unlikely to secure Council or Board approval because it
> incorporates Option A for grandfathered domains, and clearly establishes the new arbitration option
> solely for domains registered after its implementation date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
> 
> 
> Twitter: @VlawDC
> 
> 
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:10 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C
> 
> 
> 
> 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/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171021/0478c1fe/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/20171021/0478c1fe/attachment-0001.jpe>