[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of co-chairs (was Re: Announcement: No Working Group call this week)

Thu Dec 21 21:10:16 UTC 2017

Hi folks,

It has been 2 days since my email of Tuesday, and the co-chairs have
not contacted me to discuss my appeal of their decision to invoke yet
another anonymous poll, one that is inconsistent with ICANN's
transparency requirements. Both co-chairs attended yesterday's RPM PDP
call, and time could have been set aside to talk either before or
after that call. Or, time could have been set aside to talk today,
during our regular IGO PDP meeting timeslot that was cancelled. I was
available continuously (except for sleep!).

I also asked multiple times (all on the record, on the public mailing
list) for the identity and contact details of the relevant "chair of
the Chartering Organization or their designated representative" for a
formal appeal, and was not provided with those details Since Heather
Forrest is the current chair of the GNSO, I'm cc'ing her on this email
(although, perhaps she can refer it to her "designated
representative", if she's not the appropriate person).

I'll note that I am not alone in my concerns. Seven PDP members
(including myself) share those concerns, as noted in the public
mailing list archive:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/date.html

which is a highly significant portion of the actively engaged members
of this PDP.

I ask that Ms. Forrest intervene at this time to ensure that the
long-established ICANN transparency requirements are followed going
forward.

[For background reading, and for Ms. Forrest's benefit,  the above
mailing list archive discusses the relevant issues, e.g. in my posts:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000989.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000993.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000998.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001000.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001002.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001005.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001007.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001008.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001013.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001016.html

although it might be easier to simply read all posts sequentially
(they're relatively short, starting from the chronological archive
(very first link above) with a subject of "Consensus Process concerns
-- settling on designations" and working forward, to get all
statements).]

I'm sending this email now as it's just after 10:00 am New Zealand
time on Friday, and the co-chairs have proposed that their survey will
go out on Friday (in North America), perhaps hoping to avoid the
appeal by "running out the clock" arguing that "the holidays
intervened" (which would be a problem of their own creation).

Yesterday, Mary Wong of ICANN staff claimed that:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001015.html

"For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all
feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will
respond to the mailing list shortly."

but this has not happened.

I regret that it has come to this, as I've bent over backwards to
attempt to resolve this issue that has many in this PDP concerned.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:35 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