[GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group

Wed Feb 6 01:44:35 UTC 2019

P.S. I'll add another point. On page 1 of the letter from the
co-chairs, they write:

".....your recent input regarding the period in which individual
Trademark Claims and Sunrise proposals could be submitted ****resulted
in a decision***** to delay the opening of that period while extending
its length." (emphasis added)

Notice the co-chairs aren't claiming it "resulted in a revised
PROPOSED PROCESS" --- they openly describe it as a *decided* process
(a "decision"), by their own words and description (and obviously by
the actions in setting up the forms, as per the prior email). They're
not acting as if it's a "proposal" -- they're acting as if it's a
decided process.

They made a "decision" and Section 3.7 allows an appeal.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:11 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
>
> "In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the
> WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with
> the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated
> representative."
>
> I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of
> the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the
> matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
>
> Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the
> authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly
> formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed
> Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it
> was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcRqC21qbhupWykag/viewform
>
> That form clearly says:
>
> " The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday,
> 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be
> in order and will not be discussed."
>
> And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting.
> Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
>
> "Note that this an updated version of the procedure document
> previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
>
>   * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);
>   * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and
>     end 20 February;
>   * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included
>     submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08
>     February*;
>   * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13
>     February; and
>   * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG
>     meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
>
> In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called
> "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The
> January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened),
> conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called
> "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on
> January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
>
> i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims  (delete the
> extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
>
> The very last sentence of their response says:
>
> "Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under
> the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
>
> The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that
> we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29,
> and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
>
> The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead
> and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and
> individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file)
> showing they are still live.
>
> Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I
> await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his
> designated representative.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
> >
> > Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
> >
> >
> >
> > From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> > Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM
> > To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
> >
> >
> >
> > Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
> >
> > - This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
> >
> > - Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
> >
> > - The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann at leap.com wrote:
> >
> > Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought
> > > under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams
> > > list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but
> > > to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the
> > > ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > 416-588-0269
> > > http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg