[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus

Wed Dec 20 02:30:29 UTC 2017

In order to support any appeal, if need be, I actually went back to
the transcripts, which demonstrate how the poll will actually be used.

On October 29, 2017, at the Abu Dhabi meeting, Phil Corwin said:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-gdd-ssr2-29oct17-en.pdf

"We did a consensus – a preliminary consensus call within the working
group on this final question, the question being – and this has never
occurred, and may never occur, but we had to deal with the
question....."

So, that first anonymous poll was actually being openly characterized
and treated by Phil as a "preliminary consensus call". [It's clear
that's how the 2nd poll would actually be used.]

Next, in the transcript of the November 30, 2017 call:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-30nov17-en.pdf

Mary Wong said "In which case, and I’ll end with this, then given the
three remaining meetings, if we can get that done and launch a formal
consensus call on all the recommendations before the break at the end
of the year......

So we’re looking at three more meetings, possibly opening a consensus
call before Christmas, closing it out around the 10th of January...."
(page 27)

which is consistent with the idea that the anonymous poll is being
used as a "consensus call", one launching just before Christmas.

Then Phil Corwin followed up with:

"So we’re aiming to basically wrap up discussion by the week of - the
week before Christmas and put out a consensus call and give working
group members two weeks to respond to that." (page 28)

Oh, and how long is the poll? Two week!. So, despite Phil's recent
statements, the prior statements show the truth, that the 2-week poll
beginning before Christmas is being treated as "the consensus call".

Sincerely,

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

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> While you claim to be following that procedure, you're actually NOT
> following the procedure you quoted.
>
> "(i) After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues
> to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or
> Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for
> the group to review"
>
> However, in today's email from Mary, the co-chairs wrote:
>
> "It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the
> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO
> successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have
> reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have
> been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is
> unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or
> sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option
> should prevail."
>
> In other words, all the discussion has already been completed, or
> "reached an end point" in your own words. Thus, the co-chairs should
> make the evaluation of the designation *immediately*.
>
> A "poll" is not a continuation of "discussion". According to the
> co-chairs' statement, the discussion has been completed.
>
> If there's going to be a poll (a 'rare' case), that comes **after***
> the "iterative" process, which hasn't even been attempted.
>
> If the co-chairs are refusing to "make an evaluation of the
> designation", they should step down, and there should then be an
> election of a new chair or co-chairs to "make an evaluation of the
> designation."
>
> Based on the discussions that took place in the last few calls, and on
> the email list, I think there's already a consensus for Zak's
> proposal, namely to refer the "quirks of process" to the RPM PDP. I
> only witnessed, based on the discussions, minor opposition to it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org> wrote:
>> Zak:
>>
>>
>>
>> We shall follow this process set forth in section 3.6 of the Guidelines
>> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
>> ). The process will commence in early January after the co-chairs publish
>> our evaluation of the designation for the various options:
>>
>>
>>
>> The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on
>> recommendations should work as follows:
>>
>> i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have
>> been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an
>> evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
>>
>> ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the
>> Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation.
>>
>> iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an
>> evaluation that is accepted by the group. …
>>
>>
>>
>> Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this
>> reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all
>> Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the
>> consensus process. It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of
>> consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group.
>> Member(s) of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation
>> of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion. However, if
>> disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the process set forth below
>> to challenge the designation.
>>
>> If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a
>> position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these
>> steps sequentially:
>>
>> 1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is
>> believed to be in error.
>>
>> 2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will
>> forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her
>> reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the
>> liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s)
>> will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain
>> their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair,
>> the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants
>> disagree with the liaison support of the Chair’s determination, the
>> complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated
>> representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants’ position, the CO
>> should recommend remedial action to the Chair.
>>
>> 3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal
>> to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the
>> documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a
>> statement from the CO.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best, 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
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch
>> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:38 PM
>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo-.
>> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal
>> for moving forward to determining consensus
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Mary and Co-chairs,
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks for providing the below summary of the process moving forward.
>> Further to the below email, it is unclear to me where exactly the Consensus
>> call is taking place. It appears that there is an anonymous poll to be
>> conducted, followed by a determination of consensus level by the chairs,
>> followed by a discussion on the chairs’ designation, but I am unable to
>> identify at what stage therein if any, the Consensus call itself is deemed
>> to be taking place.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the below email, it states that the, “final consensus level for each
>> option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure
>> provided in the Guidelines”. So does that mean there will at some point be a
>> Consensus call made “on the designated mailing list”, as per the Guidelines?
>>
>>
>>
>> Zak
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mary Wong
>> Sent: December-18-17 11:46 AM
>> To: gnso-igo-ingo-.
>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving
>> forward to determining consensus
>> Importance: High
>>
>>
>>
>> The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter
>> Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the
>> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully
>> asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point;
>> that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and
>> discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional
>> options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group
>> participants regarding which option should prevail.
>>
>>
>>
>> Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
>>
>>
>>
>> If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion
>> of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus
>> call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG
>> consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and
>> that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the
>> intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call,
>> we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please
>> respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is
>> needed.
>>
>>
>>
>> On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose
>> of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of
>> support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG
>> members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for
>> addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with
>> means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of
>> the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition
>> for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members
>> wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG
>> member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll
>> will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of
>> the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and
>> will be included as a section of our Final Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share
>> their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each
>> option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th,
>> 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The
>> GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide
>> feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level
>> for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the
>> procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed
>> we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will
>> provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority
>> views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO
>> Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission
>> deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank
>> you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp