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

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed Dec 20 18:18:11 UTC 2017 

I agree 100%


From:  Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
Date:  Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:50 PM
To:  Nat Cohen <ncohen at telepathy.com>
Cc:  "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this
week

> 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 isn¹t 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 George¹s 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 Zak¹s 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 <tel:(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 <tel: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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171220/9671235e/attachment-0001.html>

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