[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The Length of this PDP and Bringing Things To a Close (was Re: Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs)

Sat Jan 13 13:47:43 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

(1) For those concerned about the length of this PDP, I'd like to
point out that it was proposed (by me) that we had fulfilled our
mandate as of December 2014 (that's not a typo), see:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000220.html

when the *existing* workaround (assignee, licensee, agent) was
documented. What have we really accomplished since that date, other
than fill in the details related to that primary finding?

(2) Much energy recently has been spent dealing with the "quirk of
process" regarding availability of court access to registrants who
want judicial review on the merits of the dispute. Anything we do in
that regard *must* be within the scope of our charter. If you've not
read the Appeal PDF that I posted 2 days ago:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-January/001035.html

take a look at point 19 which starts near the bottom of page 11 (you
can skip the rest, if you'd like). It takes less than 1 minute to read
that point (it's less than a page long).

If that point is correct, then all of that quirk of process discussion
for registrants is *not* even within the scope of our Charter, and is
properly directed to the RPM PDP (which can deal with the impact on
*registrants* in the same manner as the Yoyo.email UK Cause of Action
issue, which has essentially the same root cause, the role reversal of
plaintiff/defendants).

I repeat, the work of this PDP ***as it relates to IGOs*** was
completed in 2014! Do we have a consensus on this? If so, wrap things
up.

Sincerely,

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

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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/download/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
>>> Reston, VA 20190
>>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>> 571-342-7489/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] 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp