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

Sun Jan 14 16:17:43 UTC 2018

Novoa,

I am generally in favor of polling if properly done.

The only way that polling can be honest and not subject to manipulation is
to require the following:

1.	Full name (to confirm that the person is a member is the WG)
2.	Confirm that the results are public (because there is otherwise no way
to audit #1).

Even then one must reach consensus as to the actual question being asked.
As an attorney I am fully aware that responses can be susceptible to the
language of and manner in which the question is asked.

I am only interested in openness and transparency.  I agree that there may
be specific cases in which the participants may have legitimate reason for
not publicizing their identity.  However, this can also be addressed as to
those people to which that situation applies.

Thus far I have seen absolutely no statement of why any annonymous polling
should be conducted.

But enough of this.  I believe it is time for the Chairs to acknowledge
that this WG must move forward and absent a compelling reason supporting
anonymous polling it should be performed as is the standard - in an open
and transparent manner.

Phil and Petter I ask that you agree that the polling be transparent and
undertaken once the WG has agreed on the language of the questions to be
asked.

Lets move forward.

Paul Keating

On 1/12/18, 10:52 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Novoa, Osvaldo"
<gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of onovoa at Antel.com.uy>
wrote:

>I don¹t support nor oppose anonymous polling, most of us have been
>participating in this group for a long time so everybody has a general
>idea on our position.
>This said, I concur that we are waisting time on a formality.  Even
>though a few formally supported anonymous polling also a few formally
>supported it, so we don¹t know how many are in favor or against this for
>of polling.  That said, since the group is open to anybody, I don¹t see
>what is the difference between anonymous or personal polling.
>I would gladly support a majority decision on this issue in order to
>finish the work as soon as possible.
>Best regards,
>Osvaldo Novoa
>
>El 12 ene. 2018, a las 17:45, Mike Rodenbaugh
><mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>> escribió:
>
>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<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>
>On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher
><dmaher at pir.org<mailto: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<tel:(312)%20375-4849>
>
>From: Mike Rodenbaugh
>[mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com>]
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM
>To: David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org<mailto:dmaher at pir.org>>
>Cc: Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>;
>gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<tel:(415)%20738-8087>
>http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>
>On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher
><dmaher at pir.org<mailto: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<tel:(312)%20375-4849>
>
>From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounc
>es at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM
>To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es<mailto:paul at law.es>>
>Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<tel:(415)%20738-8087>
>http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
>
>On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating
><paul at law.es<mailto: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 ³record² 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<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>> wrote:
>The call transcript can be found at
>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Dis
>cussion%20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GNSO%20WG%
>20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=151576981
>8000&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&ent
>ry=gmail&source=g>
>Reston, VA 20190
>703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
>571-342-7489<tel:(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] On
>Behalf Of George Kirikos
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM
>To: gnso-igo-ingo-.
><gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<tel:(416)%20588-0269>
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos
><icann at leap.com<mailto: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<tel:(416)%20588-0269>
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos
><icann at leap.com<mailto: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<tel:(416)%20588-0269>
>http://www.leap.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
>________________________________
>
>El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
>únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede
>ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor
>notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine
>inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su
>sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este
>e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas
>destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con
>respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo
>nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
>
>
>This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for
>the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the
>sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the
>attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person
>or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is
>not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our
>Information Security Policy.
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp