[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs

[George Kirikos]

P.S. I'm not going to point everything that's wrong with that letter
at this time (all the real arguments have been public on this mailing
list already). But, just take a look at the final paragraph of that
letter, their appeal for urgency, and attempt to put "blame" on the
objections for delays:

"As we had hoped to conclude our work and submit a Final Report to the
Council by ****January 2018**** but will now not be able to do so
given the objections that have been raised, we will greatly appreciate
the Council’s prompt guidance on our request as described above."

(emphasis added)

In fact, their own letter to this mailing list *3 days ago* says
otherwise regarding the timeline:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000988.html

said "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."

That speaks for itself.

Sincerely,

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











On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:48 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I see that the co-chairs have *already* sent a one-sided letter to the
> GNSO Council that purports to include the "relevant background
> information", see:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-December/020781.html
>
> That letter does not come close to capturing all the arguments that
> have been made, nor do they even bother to link to the relevant
> discussions that have taken place on this mailing list or at our last
> 2 conference calls. It is advocacy, and not neutral.
>
> Perhaps that's why they didn't even attempt to copy that email to the
> IGO PDP mailing list.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of
>> interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to
>> proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call
>> scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would
>> make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made
>> open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular
>> meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to
>> me.
>>
>> I of course do not withdraw the appeal.
>>
>> I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I
>> sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please
>> explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or
>> even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't
>> have 2 days ago?
>>
>> Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have
>> the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure
>> that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please
>> ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO
>> Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so
>> that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency
>> and accountability mechanisms.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Dear George,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the
>>> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear George,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the
>>> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated
>>> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the
>>> GNSO Working Group Guidelines
>>> (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf).
>>> That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes
>>> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted …
>>> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that
>>> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request
>>> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering
>>> Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this
>>> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January
>>> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that
>>> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working
>>> Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be
>>> invited to sit in on the call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that
>>> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group
>>> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the
>>> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of
>>> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the
>>> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO
>>> Policy Development Processes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as
>>> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we
>>> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018.
>>> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a
>>> withdrawal of your appeal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Philip and Petter
>>>
>>>