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

Wed Dec 20 17:16:37 UTC 2017

I agree, Zak, and would also request the co-chairs to reconsider.

Sincerely,
Jay

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:54 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171220/1c559591/attachment-0001.html>