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

Sun Dec 24 10:00:05 UTC 2017

Dear Ms. Forrest,

Thank you, and happy holidays.

Sincerely,

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

On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Kirikos,
>
> I confirm receipt of your email and acknowledge your invocation of the
> section 3.7 procedure.
>
> Council leadership met with staff and the PDP co-chairs just prior to the
> end of the week to ensure you received a reply prior to the end of year
> shutdown. Some minor delay in setting up a discussion time is inevitable
> given that between the members of Council leadership and the co-chairs and
> relevant staff we cover nearly every time zone on the globe, but I believe
> we were successful in getting an email to you before Saturday in your time
> zone.
>
> Section 3.7 requires in first instance a meeting between the party raising
> the matter and the PDP chair/s. If other PDP members supporting the
> invocation of section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, my reading of
> the relevant section suggests that is entirely appropriate.
>
> Per section 3.7, after that meeting has taken place, if you would like to
> proceed to the next step meeting, that will be arranged.
>
> The availability of PDP co-chairs and ICANN staff is limited this week by
> end of year holidays (and, in my case in the southern hemisphere, also
> summer holiday closures) but I assure you we will arrange the first instance
> meeting for you and other interested members as soon as possible. I will
> take the opportunity in the interim to carefully review the records at the
> links you have provided.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Heather Forrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:10 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>