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

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed Feb 6 16:52:34 UTC 2019


Hi Phil,

Funny that I wasn't invited to that conference call. Why don't you
post the recording of that call, Phil, in the interests of
transparency?

Let me make this very simple --- what is the current active and
binding work plan that this PDP is operating under?

That was such a simple question, you should be able to provide a link
to it immediately, without delay. The answer to that question will
expose the contradictions in the letter from the co-chairs that you
claim was approved by seven individuals.

Possibility #1: the January 29 so-called "proposed process" is the
current and binding work plan. If that is the case, then that's an
admission that a "decided process" exists, and I have standing to
appeal it under section 3.7.

Possibility #2: some other work plan is in effect (identify it). Then,
if this is the situation, then that means ICANN staff and the
co-chairs "went rogue" in posting those forms for the additional data
and individual work plans, with their own purported deadlines with
consequences if the deadlines were not met. I can certainly challenge
that too, under Section 3.7.

There are really only 2 possibilities --- which one is it, Phil? Or
are you going to ignore the question, just like ICANN Staff did when I
asked them to produce all the documents they compiled that they were
supposed to be working on since August 2017?

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:30 AM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Dear WG members:
>
> In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs--
>
>         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.
>
> -- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7.
>
> That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted.
>
> It was agreed on that call that I would  write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect.
>
> Best to all,
> Philip
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
>
> 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


More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list