[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame and continous adding of new proposals

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed Dec 20 17:02:11 UTC 2017 

Phil,

I respect your opinion but disagree with it.  I know that we are all tired
of this project and want to see it finished.  However, I do not want to do
that at the risk of violating what I see are clear rules.  In that regard
while I support the use of polls those polls must be:

Restricted to voting members
Be transparent ­ identifying the person voting and what was voted for.
Be publicly available for all purposes as WG records.

Paul

From:  Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
"Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Reply-To:  "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date:  Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:20 AM
To:  "petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>,
"gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame and
continous adding of new proposals

> I appreciate the thoughtful statement from my co-chair.
>  
> I share his view that, whether or not any of the options before us receives
> consensus support, it is our duty and responsibility to deliver a conclusive
> final report rather than recommend that another working group, which already
> has a very broad and challenging mandate, be asked to add to that burden and
> reconsider a matter on which we have labored for three and a half years.
>  
> 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 Petter Rindforth
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 6:17 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame
> and continous adding of new proposals
>  
> 
> Dear members of our WG,
> 
>  
> 
> Just a few personal comments, as I can fully understand that it sometimes may
> be hard to remember all steps, discussions and decisions we have made together
> since our first meeting in August 11, 2014.
> 
>  
> 
> As you all know, we have deeply discussed all possible variations during our
> WG calls, and also already at ICANN52 in Singapore, at February 13, 2015 had a
> full day F2F meeting (from 9.30 ­ 17.15), including 75 minutes discussion
> based on George Kirikos suggestion regarding
> 
> possible ³mechanics² for IGO filing.
> 
>  
> 
> At April 29, 2015, we received the GAC reply to a number of questions we had
> sent to them. As to Question 3: ³In opposing [amendments to the UDRP and URS]
> does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its
> ³Mutual Jurisdiction² provisions to address specific sovereign immunity
> concerns of IGOs? How should a curative rights process appropriately deal with
> this problem while also ensuring adequate due process protections for
> registrants?², GAC replied that:
> 
>  
> 
> ³The GAC notes that the IGOs, in their communication to you of 16 January
> 2015, have advised that they consider their claimed immunity from national
> jurisdiction to be fundamental to their role as international bodies. There
> are non-judicial means to ensure due process, such as arbitration, which the
> GAC believes should be considered in more detail.²
> 
>  
> 
> At February 20, 2016, we still had the goal to present our Initial Report
> prior to ICANN55 in Marrakech (March 5 ­ 10, 2016Š)
> 
>  
> 
> The Timeline was discussed and updated at our August 4, 2016 meeting:
> 
>  
> 
> Month of August 2016 (after 4 August WG call) ­ straw poll of members on
> elements to be addressed in a draft Initial Report; staff preparation of
> outline of report with those elements
> 
> 1 & 8 September ­ discuss outline and elements; staff to begin filling out
> draft Initial Report
> 
> 15 & 22 September ­ discuss preliminary conclusions
> 
> 30 September ­ staff to prepare and circulate draft Initial Report
> 
> 6, 13, 20 October ­ discuss Initial Report
> 
> 24 October ­ publish Initial Report for public comment
> 
> Early November (ICANN57) ­ present conclusions in Initial Report for community
> discussion
> 
> Mid-end November ­ begin discussion of community feedback and public comments
> received 
> 
> 3 December ­ public comment forum closes; staff to prepare summary and Public
> Comment Review Tool
> 
> 8 & 15 December ­ continue discussions of public comments received (no meeting
> on 22 or 29 December)
> 
> 5 & 12 January 2017 ­ continue discussion of public comments received;
> determine if preliminary conclusions and any open questions need to be
> updated; staff to prepare draft Final Report
> 
> 19 & 26 January ­ discuss final recommendations; staff to circulate draft
> Final Report by end-January
> 
> 2 February ­ discuss Final Report
> 
> 6 February - commence formal consensus call
> 
> 9 & 16 February (only if needed) ­ WG meeting
> 
> 20 February ­ conclude formal consensus call
> 
> 27 February 2017 ­ sign off on Final Report; chairs to submit Final Report to
> GNSO Council
> 
>  
> 
> On our meetings in December 2016 ­ January 2017, we deeply discussed our
> Initial Report, and fully agreed to ask for comments on 2 options:
> 
>  
> 
> Where an IGO succeeds in asserting its claim of jurisdictional immunity in a
> court of mutual jurisdiction, the Working Group recommends that in that case:
> 
>  
> 
> Option 1 - the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor
> UDRP or URS shall be vitiated; or
> 
>  
> 
> Option 2 ­ the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor
> UDRP or URS may be brought before the [name of arbitration entity] for de novo
> review and determination.
> 
>  
> 
> Among the comments received, apart from IGO¹s, there were also comments from
> Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as from individuals (members of
> our WG), meaning that everyone had the possibility to comment and adding new
> proposals, for further discussion in our WG.
> 
>  
> 
> We discussed the public comments received on our meetings at March 30, April
> 6, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, 2017
> 
>  
> 
> At the May 4 meeting it was noticed a comment from some IGO.s (OECD, UN, UPU,
> WHO & WIPO), on the time frame, based on a discussion of it was need to have
> another external legal advice on Article 6ter: ³IGO colleagues share the
> OECD¹s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has
> already been an extensive and resource-intensive process², meaning that also
> IGO representatives wanted to have a result/decision of our work without
> further delays.
> 
>  
> 
> At July 13, 2017, we still discussed the 2 options (Options 1 & 2 for
> Recommendation #4)
> 
>  
> 
> On our July 20, call, we discussed three new options:
> 
>  
> 
> OPTION 3 TO RECOMMENDATION #4
> 
> Suggested by Paul Keating on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017):
> 
> https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw
> 
>  
> 
> OPTION 4 TO RECOMMENDATION #4
> 
> Suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June 2017):
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html
> <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL:
> 
> From Paul Keating, via email to the mailing list, 14 July 2017:
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igoingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html
> 
>  
> 
> These were further discussed on July 27, August 3 (Options 3, 4, 5, 6), and
> September 7 (Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
> 
>  
> 
> It is also noted that on July 26, we discussed and agreed upon a new draft
> timeline for completion of our WG, with December 7, 2017 for our WG to
> Finalize Report, and noting that December 11, 2017 was a Document deadline for
> GNSO Council December meeting (either submit Final Report here, or if more
> time is needed, aim to submit for GNSO Council meeting in January 2018).
> 
>  
> 
> On our September 26, 2017 meeting, we agreed on Option A, B and C, which was
> further discussed on October 5, in preparation for a Surveyto detect consensus
> on Options A, B or C.
> 
>  
> 
> At our December 7, 2017 call, we discussed Options A, B, C and George Kirikos
> Option 6.
> 
>  
> 
> At our December 14 call we had three additional proposals (as well as A, B,
> C): from Zak Muscovitch, George Kirikos and Paul Tattersfield respectively,
> that were discussed.
> 
>  
> 
> To summarize:
> 
> I think it is clear to all of us, that we have discussed our topic/s deeply
> for a long time. I also think it is clear that some WG members support A,
> where other WG members support C (including myself). Continuously adding new
> proposals at the last minute, and thereby arguing that our topics have not
> already been fully discussed, will not change that fact.
> 
>  
> 
> I deeply respect the knowledge and experience of all my fellow WG members, and
> that is why I also hope that all of you agrees that the reason why we actively
> join a WG is to find a solution and recommendation on specific topic/s (and
> keeping the time frame), rather than conclude that we shall refrain from
> taking our responsibility and instead transfer the subject to another working
> group.
> 
>  
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Petter
> 
> -- 
> 
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
> 
>  
> 
> Fenix Legal KB 
> 
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 
> 114 35 Stockholm 
> 
> Sweden 
> 
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> 
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> 
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> 
> www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> NOTICE 
> 
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
> whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
> information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not
> the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it
> or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify
> us by return e-mail.
> 
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
> 
> 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171220/0b9096df/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171220/0b9096df/image001-0001.jpg>

More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list