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

Sat Jan 13 12:34:09 UTC 2018

*The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a
purported problem that has never been proved to exist.  And whose
proponents have refused to participate in the WG*

Agreed and we also have

A draft report with basic avoidable errors
An expert’s report that isn’t even relevant to the WG’s charter
A (nearly?) final report that incorrectly applies the expert’s findings

And a proposed recommendation for an arbitration mechanism which will
probably never be used as it is limited to cases that require a quirk of
process as the result of a combination of a bad judge, an incompetent
lawyer and no appeal.

And to get that proposed recommendation into the report?

We’re waiting a week for a written rebuttal/approval of oral testimony
which hasn’t been heard yet, so some who is supposed to be informed can
workout how to defend a position in the absence of guidance from above once
the oral reasoning is delivered.

You couldn't make it up.

Best regards,

Paul.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
wrote:

> Agreed.  But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling.  And
> "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept.  The
> entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported
> problem that has never been proved to exist.  And whose proponents have
> refused to participate in the WG.  It is all the more reason NOT to have an
> anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus.  After three years(?!),
> nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
>>
>>
>>
>> David W. Maher
>>
>> Public Interest Registry
>>
>> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
>>
>> +1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM
>> *To:* David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org>
>> *Cc:* Paul Keating <paul at law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the
>> IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>>
>> Always good to hear from you.  Can you explain why, briefly?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
>>
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org> wrote:
>>
>> I support the use of an anonymous poll.
>>
>> David W. Maher
>>
>> Public Interest Registry
>>
>> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
>>
>> +1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM
>> *To:* Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
>> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the
>> IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed this is ridiculous.  Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an
>> anonymous poll of this WG?  I don't recall seeing any other support for it,
>> so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
>>
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>
>> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
>>
>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul at law.es> wrote:
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on
>> resolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous
>> poll.  The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the
>> anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>> What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute
>> informally became embroiled in procedural objections.   Instead of making
>> an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in
>> the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be
>> created.
>>
>> The result was a continued delay of the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED.  Why the
>> process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling
>> is rather confusing to me.  It would appear that time is better spent
>> actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and
>> transparent manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> As said, my 2 cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Keating
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <
>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/do
>> wnload/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion%20George
>> %E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GNSO%20WG%
>> 20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1&
>> modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
>>
>> For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was
>> "interrupted immediately".
>>
>> What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28
>> footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the
>> call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to
>> the call.
>>
>> When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the
>> length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice,
>> the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after
>> conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in
>> writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be
>> noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>> Policy Counsel
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Reston, VA 20190
>> 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
>> 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
>> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM
>> To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the
>> IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling
>> within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my
>> presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged
>> down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
>>
>> [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and
>> audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the
>> bottom).]
>>
>> Have a nice weekend!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
>>
>> of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
>>
>> previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> George Kirikos
>>
>> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
>>
>> January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
>>
>> (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
>>
>> sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
>>
>> attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
>>
>> relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have a nice weekend!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>> George Kirikos
>>
>> 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
>>
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180113/3b546cd0/attachment-0001.html>