[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Update on appeal filed under Section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines

Thu Feb 1 05:37:17 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

The co-chairs' summary and proposed path forward doesn't match up with
what was agreed on the January 18, 2018 call. I even wrote a summary
email (to the participants of the call) immediately after the call,
and here it is in its entirety:

----- start of summary email of January 18, 2018 -----------------
Thanks to everyone for a very productive call. We were at risk of
getting side-tracked a few times, but in the end it's nice to see we
found a way forward (subject to the input of the working group
members). So, the "action items" seem to be:

1) tell the rest of the PDP working group about our proposed way
forward (i.e. asking GNSO council for facilitator, brainstorming that,
promoting it for maximum participation, Doodle poll to find best times
for all 25 people, etc.) Possible use of a "regular" poll should the
facilated process not reach the desired result/consensus. Regular poll
would have docs prepared in advance outlining all the options, and
agreed upon questions to ask (not solely created by the co-chairs).

2) tell GNSO council to remove the agenda item provisionally added for
the January 30 meeting (eliminates need at this moment to respond to
this week's PDF, and keeps everything within our PDP working group
going for now)
----- start of summary email of January 18, 2018 -----------------

(1) in particular matches up with what's in the transcript of the call
(see page 30 of transcript at
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01-18+Discussion+Call
)

A poll (non-anonymous, and agreed to by all before it got sent out,
unlike the last one) was supposed to be a "last resort", *IF* the
facilitated process to reach consensus failed. In other words, if it
was ever to take place, it would only be *after* the facilitated
process.

Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a poll *before* such a
facilitated process, which I don't agree with. That was not part of
the January 18, 2018 agreement.

Then they're proposing analysis of such poll results too, *before* the
facilitated session(s). Instead of actually consulting with the
working group members (e.g. via a Doogle poll) to find a date/time
that can yield the maximum participation of the membership, as was
agreed, the co-chairs are instead proposed it for ICANN61.

Anyhow, I don't agree with the newly proposed process at all, as it
doesn't reflect what was agreed on January 18, 2018. If the co-chairs
are reneging on that agreement, I intend to invoke Section 3.7 again.

I suggest the co-chairs instead propose what was actually agreed to on
January 18, 2018, namely:

1. the use of a facilitator to assist in reaching working group
consensus (with broad outreach to pick a date/time that is suitable
for maximum participation)
2. if that facilitated process is held and is unable to reach the
consensus, a last resort non-anonymous poll that is created by the
group (not solely by the co-chairs like last time) would be done

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find attached a summary of points regarding how to move forward,
> based on the outcome of the discussions between George Kirikos and the
> Working Group co-chairs. The attachment is being sent on behalf of the
> co-chairs.
>
>
>
> Working Group members are kindly invited to provide your feedback on the
> various questions raised for your consideration, in the hope that everyone
> can reach agreement as to how to move forward, including the engagement of a
> facilitator (if agreed).
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary and Steve
>
>
>
> From: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
> Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:05
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Update on appeal filed under Section
> 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines
>
>
>
> Hi Mary
>
> Can you clarify how the process of obtaining the facilitator will work and
> let us know when that can get started?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul Keating, Esq.
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> For your information, the second call between George Kirikos (who filed the
> appeal under Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and Working
> Group co-chairs Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth took place on Thursday 18
> January. Also on the call were Paul Keating and Paul Tattersfield (Working
> Group members who supported George’s appeal) and ICANN Ombudsman Herb Waye
> (in an observer capacity). The recording and transcript of the call can be
> found on the Working Group wiki space here:
> https://community.icann.org/x/iAS8B[community.icann.org].
>
>
>
> On the call, agreement was reached to take the suggestion of requesting a
> facilitator’s assistance to the Working Group.
>
>
>
> Staff has completed our action item from the call, which was to advise the
> GNSO Council leadership and Working Group liaison to remove the planned
> agenda item concerning Phil’s and Petter’s December 2017 request from the
> Council’s 30 January meeting agenda. We confirm that the Council’s agenda
> has been amended accordingly.
>
>
>
> We believe Phil and Petter will follow up with everyone on the mailing list.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary and Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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