[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week

Wed Dec 20 14:46:11 UTC 2017

I participate in other Wgs that regularly  use polling.  In EACH Poll the
following conditions are applicable:

Participant MUST be a member of the WG
Participant must state the full name
Participant must acknowledge that their identity and response are public
and will become part of the record of the WG.

Paul

On 12/20/17, 2:33 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos"
<gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:

>Thanks Mike. There is no expectation of 'privacy' in a PDP.
>
>1. Section 4.1 of the guidelines clearly states:
>
>https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pd
>f
>
>"There is a presumption of full transparency in all WGs. In the
>extraordinary event that the WG should require confidentiality, it is
>up to that WG to propose a set of rules and procedures in
>collaboration with the CO."
>
>The first anonymous poll, and the 2nd one that the co-chairs have
>scheduled, violate that **full transparency** standard. To do
>otherwise would be "extraordinary", and the WG did not "propose a set
>of rules and procedures in collaboration with the CO" --- instead, the
>co-chairs unilaterally imposed their will upon the rest of the working
>group.
>
>2. Furthermore, Section 6.1.2 of the guidelines states:
>
>"6.1.2    Transparency and Openness
>
>All Working Groups are expected to operate under the principles of
>transparency and openness, which means, inter alia, that mailing lists
>are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or
>transcribed, and SOIs are required from Working Group participants and
>will be publicly available. It is important that prospective Working
>Group members are made aware of these principles."
>
>Once again, anonymous polls are not consistent with that section's
>transparency and openness requirements. I'll note again for the
>record, as I've pointed out before, that multiple SOIs for PDP
>"members" have not been posted to the Wiki, another breach of the
>guidelines. Two SOIs (both created only on December 7, 2017, and not
>updated since) are openly blank:
>
>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Nirmol+Agarwal+SOI
>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Gary+Campbell+SOI
>
>despite both "members" being listed on the members page at least as
>early as October 2017:
>
>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71600345
>https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895
>
>3. Section 6.1.3 is also interesting:
>
>"6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expecations of the Chair
>...
>The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting
>a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and
>objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that
>a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion,
>but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal
>opinion or view is being stated, instead of a Œruling of the chair.¹
>However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific
>position."
>
>The one-sided "preliminary notes" to the "Options" document that was
>circulated by the co-chairs prior to that first poll shows that that
>standard hasn't been met by the current co-chairs. I invite anyone to
>re-read that document:
>
>http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000847.html
>
>and try to argue that it was neutral. It was riddled with false
>statements and half-truths designed to attack Options A and B. The
>co-chairs did not "refrain from promoting a specific agenda", but
>instead used that document as *co-chairs* (not as individual members
>on an equal footing with all other members) to promote and advocate
>for a specific position, Option C. That is wrong, and a violation of
>the guidelines.
>
>4. Section 6.1.3 also goes on to say that:
>
>"In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must
>appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not
>participate in the substance of the discussions. In such
>circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO.
>...
>The Chartering Organization, working with the Staff, might consider
>the use of a professional facilitator, in certain circumstances, to
>help a Chair ensure neutrality and promote consensus or to provide
>other capabilities and expertise."
>
>That might be a prudent way forward, in my opinion, to ensure
>neutrality and promote consensus going forward.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
>wrote:
>> I agree with George on this.  I have seen no reasoning to support an
>> anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of
>> developing policy transparently -- always.
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Mary,
>>>
>>> According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.
>>>pdf
>>>
>>> who can assist and intervene when the working group is having
>>> problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as
>>> it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and
>>> inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous
>>> comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have
>>> decided  they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to
>>> guide policymaking.
>>>
>>> Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the
>>> guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll.
>>> Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I
>>> intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or
>>> their designated representative. Please identify that person, and
>>> their contact details.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>> > Dear all,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note
>>>that
>>> > there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We
>>> > will
>>> > resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline
>>> > outlined
>>> > by the co-chairs (below).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the
>>>Next-Generation
>>> > Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this
>>>was
>>> > brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil
>>>and
>>> > Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not
>>> > utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially
>>> > different from the situation in our Working Group.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll  with all results
>>>to
>>> > be
>>> > published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the
>>> > respondent  will encourage greater participation and more candid
>>> > responses,
>>> > which will help guide their initial designation of the options for
>>> > Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations
>>>1, 2,
>>> > and
>>> > 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Finally, please note that once the co-chairs¹ initial designations
>>>are
>>> > published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG
>>> > will be
>>> > identified with those providing input and feedback.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN
>>> > staff
>>> > supporting your work,
>>> >
>>> > Mary
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>> > Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46
>>> > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> > Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to
>>> > determining
>>> > consensus
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 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-chairs¹ 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp