[Comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21] Reply of Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. to comment by the IPC

[George Kirikos]

By: George Kirikos
Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Website: http://www.leap.com/
Date: May 21, 2021

In the comment submitted by the Intellectual Property Constituency,

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommendations-07apr21/2021q2/000009.html

appear to claim, without evidence, that I made "legal threats to the
Working Group co-chairs" and that there were "delays in the Working
Group's progress". These are both false statements. Any communications
to the co-chairs can easily be reviewed, and there were no "legal
threats" from me or my representatives, who only sought to ensure due
process.

Furthermore, Phil Corwin (one of the three co-chairs) personally
admitted that there was no actual disruption to the work as noted in
the March 10, 2019 letter:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gross-to-jeffrey-10mar19-en.pdf

(pages 1-2, section 2) where Phil Corwin is quoted as saying:

"Goran’s statement that, “WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DISPUTES
WITHIN THE GROUP, AND IT'S MORE OR LESS BEEN STALLED FOR THE LAST
SEVEN MONTHS” is factually incorrect. Greg Shatan’s ESB complaint was
filed in June, so its resolution has been stalled for four months.
However, the WG has made substantial progress on its work during the
past few months, including the consideration, and adoption for Initial
Report public comment purposes, of 34 sub-team recommendations and 33
individual proposals for URS operational and policy modifications.
However, the escalation of outside counsel involvement beyond the
original ESB complaint to occurrences within WG meetings does threaten
its further progress absent a satisfactory resolution."

which cited an email posted to the GNSO Council mailing list on
October 25, 2018, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-October/021981.html

It's no surprise that the IPC gets things wrong, and is unable to cite
evidence --- that's how its members routinely operated throughout this
and other ICANN working groups. It's no surprise that they seek to
weaponize the Expected Standards of Behaviour to remove their policy
opponents, because they believe that **anyone** who counters their
misinformation and weak arguments is "disruptive" and must be removed.

By the way, if you review the history of ICANN, one of the few
entities that has actually engaged in litigation is Verisign itself,
who sued ICANN and "Does 1-50" (which presumably would have included
many community volunteers):

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/verisign-v-icann-2012-02-25-en

It's funny that no one has removed Verisign from policy debates or
working group memberships, due to their *actual* litigation. This is
further demonstration of the "double standards" that are employed, to
eliminate policy opponents from policy debate.

Sincerely,

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