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

Wed Dec 20 16:50:22 UTC 2017

I am very disappointed it has come to this, but I'm biased as I was hoping
my proposals could be discussed at least once prior to the poll. What I am
raising isn’t a minor matter and I believe the reasoning my proposal relies
on if accepted by the working group may mean much of the final report will
have to be substantially re-written.

We had a similar problem with the draft report on 6ter only evidencing
underlying rights but those driving the working group wouldn't listen and
the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had
to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting the report to
correct that fundamental error.

Given we have spent so long on all the issues perhaps it would be helpful
if we could have a second draft report and invite public comment on a set
of alternatives. (The possibility of second draft report was requested but
this was also blocked.)

Given these additional issues I too support George’s request for a formal
review of the co-chairs decision to hold another anonymous poll at this
stage.

Best regards,

Paul.

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I support Zak’s statement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nat Cohen
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:55 AM Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <(415)%20738-8087>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/d89d042d/attachment-0001.html>