[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)

Thu Apr 19 13:05:38 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the
blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives
and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the
working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral
decision of December 21:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html

"Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be
scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a
poll and subsequent consensus call process."

"We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and
their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You
can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to
that email.

As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high
quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for
the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated)
to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid
reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the
working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the
table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html

I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan
is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded,
for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd
like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20,
2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was
posted:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call

but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the
co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been
posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently
determine exactly what's happening.

Sincerely,

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

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> Paul:
>
>
>
> For the record, and in regard to this –
>
> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss
> it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the
> fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and
> months on end.
>
>
>
> The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
> blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when
> the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs
> later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George
> rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you
> supported George in these actions.
>
>
>
> Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members
> the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
>
>
>
> Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the
> Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before
> the WG.
>
>
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: Donna.Austin at team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>;
> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary
> Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
> Group)
>
>
>
> Dear ICANN,
>
>
>
> I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call
> later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which
> clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any
> comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my
> apologies
>
> Briefly, I would also like to point out:
>
> The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
> initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either
> the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly
> simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on
> ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
>
> The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case
> where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark
> owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not
> relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are
> initiating proceedings.
>
> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss
> it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the
> fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and
> months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the
> private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other
> option than option 3 -  the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
>
> We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM
> working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved
> for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's
> favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets
> the GAC's advice.
>
>
>
> It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
> (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants
> to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name
> only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings
> and no interest group has lost anything!
>
>
>
> Yours  sincerely,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
> there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
> orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
> response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
> interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
> post them in advance of the call.
>
> 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
> extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
> participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
> For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
> according to:
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
>
> has its attendance logs at:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
>
> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
> number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
>
> Sum of total attended column = 553
> Total meetings = 56
> Average = 9.88 per meeting
>
> It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
> their recommendations:
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
>
> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
>
> Sum of total attended column = 711
> Total meetings = 71
> Average = 10.01 per meeting
>
> So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
> per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
> successfully completed.
>
> 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
> Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
> a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872=
> 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
>
> and states on page 3 of the charter that:
>
> "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts
> In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the
> progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN
> groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or
> ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.***
> ....
> In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
> consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
> Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
>
> (emphasis added)
>
> So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
> current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
> have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
> don't require any links/quotes.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working
>> Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her
>> 10
>> April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
>> invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently
>> scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan
>> will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with
>> everyone.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary & Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Mary Wong
>> <mary.wong at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
>> Group
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
>> members,
>>
>>
>>
>> I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working
>> Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set
>> out
>> in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and
>> following.
>>
>>
>>
>> As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report
>> for
>> the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with
>> recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair.
>> We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week,
>> for
>> discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next
>> Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary
>> of
>> the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
>>
>>
>>
>> An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in
>> mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be
>> made to support our call.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me
>> with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group
>> on this challenging policy area.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>>
>> Councilor for the Business Constituency
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>