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

Wed Dec 20 15:54:41 UTC 2017

Dear all,

Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with
the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and
although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also
express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied
on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the
Guidelines.

It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed
anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set,
particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this
approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of
the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I
hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and
expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination
on levels of consensus.

Zak Muscovitch

*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] *On
Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
*Sent:* December-19-17 7:02 PM
*To:* George Kirikos
*Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-.
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this
week

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-chairs’ 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-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
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171220/842b12dd/attachment-0001.html>