[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Members of this PDP have been duped (was Re: FW: [council] Motion and Final Report on Curative Rights PDP)

Wed Jul 11 11:34:43 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

FYI, ICANN responded to the DIDP request I filed a month ago. It's
attached, as it hasn't yet been posted to the ICANN website. As you
can see, they provided absolutely no material in response to the
requests, claiming that the calls were not recorded (which in itself
is perplexing, given my calls on the same issues were all recorded,
both with the co-chairs and with Heather), or that they fall under
various conditions for Nondisclosure, and/or there's no public
interest in seeing them. I respectfully disagree, and will file a
Reconsideration Request.

Given (a) I intended to rely on those documents for my Minority
Report, (b) that we now know that the GNSO Council will not be voting
on the Recommendations until August (at the earliest), and (c) I have
received no response to repeated requests for the required Section 3.7
appeal call with Heather or her designated rep,  I have decided that I
will *not* be filing my Minority Report by Friday, but instead will be
filing it 11 days before the topic comes up for a vote before GNSO
Council (10 days is the documents deadline, and 1 day to allow ICANN
staff to forward it). This might be 11 days before the August GNSO
Council call, or some future date, should they decide to defer the
vote to another meeting.

Given that Phil/Petter might consider it an "unfair advantage" that
I'd be able to view their Minority Reports when creating my own, I
give them the choice as to whether they wish to still submit their
Minority Reports by Friday, or defer them to the same date I intend to
deliver my Minority Report.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:02 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Did anyone else actually read yesterday's Motion that is going to GNSO
> Council? Rather than voting on the recommendations at the July 19th
> council meeting (that was the purported reason we were supposed to
> attempt to finish the report by yesterday), the actual resolution
> says:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001384.html
> (in the DOCX attachment)
>
> "2. In view of the need to consider the topic of curative rights
> protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall
> scope of protection for all IGO identifiers (including IGO acronyms),
> the GNSO Council intends to review this Final Report from the IGO-INGO
> Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group between now and
> its August 2018 meeting, with a view toward developing a possible path
> forward that will also facilitate the resolution of the outstanding
> inconsistencies between GAC advice and prior GNSO policy
> recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections. The GNSO
> Council confirms its intention to act on the recommendations that have
> been developed by the Working Group at the earliest opportunity
> following its review and deliberations on these topics.
>
> 3. To this end, ICANN staff is directed to inform the ICANN Board and
> the GAC that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP
> Working Group has completed its work and forward a copy of the Final
> Report to them."
>
> So, who has the incentive to produce a half-complete report? Obviously
> it's someone who wants to justify deviating from its recommendations,
> if the report's supporting rationale isn't up to snuff (as I
> repeatedly pointed out, the draft reports from staff had major
> shortcomings).
>
> And now we see that exactly, as per the motion itself, what's going on
> --- GNSO Council intends to develop a "path forward" (i.e in other
> words,. deviate from the Final Report), and not actually vote on the
> Consensus Recommendations in July! In other words, they didn't like
> the consensus recommendations, and detractors have rigged the process
> to:
>
> a) create an incomplete report, so that they can then justify
> rejecting recommendations, and then
> b) allow themselves to put in their own recommendations in August or beyond
>
> Contrast this with the preceding IGO PDP, where the final report was
> submitted November 10, 2013:
>
> https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg01091.html (mangled HTML)
> https://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg01092.html (easier to
> read at the bottom of this email instead)
>
> and then they voted to accept it 10 days later at the November 20, 2013 meeting:
>
> https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2013/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-council-20nov13-en.html
> https://archive.icann.org/meetings/buenosaires2013/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/minutes-gnso-council-20nov13-en.html
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42701/voting-igo-ingo-recommendations-1-6-20nov13-en.pdf
> "Item 5: MOTION – To approve the Recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections
> ...
> The motion carried unanimously."
>
> We've been duped, and the process continues to be manipulated. The
> process is rigged.
>
> How does GNSO Council (i.e. Susan, Heather, etc.) reconcile
> yesterday's "deadline", with the now obvious fact that they aren't
> going to be voting on it in July? Also, when is my Section 3.7 call
> with Heather or her designated rep going to take place? (given we had
> one already with Petter)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please be informed that Susan has now submitted a motion and a copy of the
>> Final Report to the GNSO Council (see below and attached). As confirmed by
>> Susan and Petter to this mailing list, please make sure that you send any
>> minority statements that you may wish to have included (and that may include
>> other comments that you may wish to make on the topic of this PDP) by 23.59
>> UTC on Friday 13 July. Staff will incorporate all minority statements
>> received by that time into Annex B of the Final Report, where a placeholder
>> for these statements has been added.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Mary & Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi
>> <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, July 9, 2018 at 19:44
>> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
>> Subject: [council] Motion and Final Report on Curative Rights PDP
>>
>>
>>
>> Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> As the Liaison for the Curative Rights PDP I am pleased to submit to Council
>> the final PDP working group report and the Motion for Council.
>>
>>
>>
>> Respectfully submitted,
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>>
>>
>>
>> GNSO 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIDP-Request-20180610-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 62682 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180711/cf14313b/DIDP-Request-20180610-1-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIDP-Response-20180610-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 158137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180711/cf14313b/DIDP-Response-20180610-1-0001.pdf>