[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Statement from the Co-Chairs

Sat Feb 3 23:58:47 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

1. I disagree with the analysis and characterization of the situation
made by the co-chairs. I'll save the full details and reasoning of
that for later, in the proper venue, but the transcripts (both the
chat transcript and the oral transcript) make it clear I would not
accept a poll on its own, without the facilitated process first. The
poll (related to section 3.6) makes no sense until *after* a
facilitator attempted to reach a consensus (prior to doing section
3.6), but failed. At that point, after failure to reach a consensus, a
poll could then capture the final levels of consensus/divergence,
etc., for the final report.

The entire compromise I suggested of using an independent and neutral
facilitator (as opposed to appointing a new chair to replace the
current ones) was made in order to eliminate the ability for the
current co-chairs to manipulate the process any further (which was
explicitly argued in section 18 of the section 3.7 appeal document
dated January 11, 2018, seeking the remedy of appointing an
independent and neutral co-chair). If that failed, further protections
would be put in place to ensure that if a poll was used later (i.e. to
document levels of consensus, should the facilitated process fail), it
would not be a poll prepared unilaterally by the co-chairs -- the poll
would need to be constructed by the entire working group, to ensure,
once again, that the polling questions/framing weren't open to
manipulation.

2. Even if you take at face value the co-chairs' claims (which I
dispute) that there was  "only an agreement to vet the concept of a
facilitated session with the full WG", then that's entirely
inconsistent with the document that was sent to the mailing list 2
days ago:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001079.html

Instead of simply vetting that concept, which was paragraph 2 of that
PDF, the co-chairs went way beyond that, attempting to reassert their
own proposals (that I rejected) from two weeks ago, i.e. paragraph 3
and related paragraphs that change the timing of the poll, and how it
would be used. Why they would act "extremely disappointed" puzzles me
--- what were they expecting, given that they had to have known it
would be unacceptable to me? Today's email even calls it a "compromise
offer", as if they're still negotiating, rather than simply vetting
what they claimed was agreed to on January 18th.

3. The co-chairs now even attempt to change how the section 3.7 appeal
should be handled, and which documents should be shared with the GNSO
Council Chair. It was agreed on January 11, 2018 exactly which
documents would be allowed. We agreed that the co-chairs were allowed
a reply to my January 11, 2018 PDF (which they delivered on January
16, 2018), and it was also agreed then by everyone that I would be
allowed a further response to that January 16th PDF (which I will
exercise my right to deliver at some future date to the GNSO Chair,
now that the appeal will have to be reactivated, apparently; the date
for such response was not specified, but it was not to be before
January 18th, i.e. the date of the last meeting to discuss the section
3.7 appeal). All these other new documents are attempts by the
co-chairs to get more bites at the apple than they were ever entitled
to or that was agreed to, and attempts to re-argue the meaning of
their new so-called "compromises".

4. I'll advise the GNSO Council Chair that the section 3.7 appeal is
no longer suspended.

Sincerely,

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

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
<gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org> wrote:
> The co-chairs are extremely disappointed by Mr. Kirikos’ rejection of what
> we believe is a very reasonable compromise proposal regarding a path forward
> for this WG. That proposal withdraws the request that the poll sought by the
> co-chairs to assist them in performing their Guideline duties be anonymous,
> and accepts consideration of his proposal (subject to WG support) for a
> facilitated session in which maximum participation of WG members will be
> encouraged.
>
> A review of the transcript of the January 18th call held between the
> co-chairs shows that there was no agreement on every element of a path
> forward, only an agreement to vet the concept of a facilitated session with
> the full WG. As noted from page 32 of the transcript, Mr. Kirikos - at least
> at the time of the second call - seemed to accept such way to move
> forward[1]. Notwithstanding Mr. Kirikos’ decision to reject our compromise
> offer and continue his section 3.7 appeal, the co-chairs continue to
> encourage feedback from other members on our proposal and thank those who
> have already responded.
>
> ICANN 61 is just five weeks away, and the co-chairs are concerned that
> further substantial delay in resolving the 3.7 appeal will make it
> logistically impossible to secure the assistance of a community facilitator
> for the WG’s session there if there is overall WG support for that approach.
> We will therefore request that staff provide the GNSO Council Chair with a
> copy of our compromise proposal, copies of Mr. Kirikos’ email responses on
> the WG list, a copy of this further response from the co-chairs, and copies
> of feedback on our proposal from other WG members -- along with a request
> from the co-chairs that the Council Chair or her designated representative
> decide his appeal as expeditiously as possible. Those materials will make
> clear that the issue of an anonymous poll is no longer in dispute, and that
> the appeal is now confined to an objection to the co-chairs’ exercise of
> their discretion to utilize a public and transparent poll of WG members to
> assist us in proposing consensus levels and initiate the consensus call
> process recommended in section 3.6 of the Guidelines, as well as address any
> potential allegations of WG “capture”.
>
> We thank WG members for their continued patience and feedback, and hope we
> can resume WG activities and complete our work as soon as possible and
> thereby conclude final recommendations on the topics of our WG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth
>
>
>
> [1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section
> 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC /
> Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat
> room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group
> members to see how they feel and I concur with that”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> [1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section
> 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC /
> Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat
> room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group
> members to see how they feel and I concur with that”
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp