[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of Chair, Liaison, and Staff (was Re: Intention to File another Section 3.7 appeal (was Re: Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC))

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Mon Jun 11 19:16:23 UTC 2018

P.S. Attached is timestamped proof that there's been no agenda on
time, via the wiki:


(timestamp = 3:12 pm Toronto time, tomorrow's call is scheduled for
12:00 noon Toronto time, = less than 21 hours away)


George Kirikos

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:41 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I've not received any response to the Section 3.7 appeal I filed yesterday,
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001254.html
> but I'd like to add to it, to reinforce it. According to the GNSO
> Operating Procedures v3.3 (30 January 2018) -- first document at:
> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-30jan18-en.pdf
> "The Chair, with support of ICANN Staff, if required, is expected to
> circulate the draft agenda to the WG ideally at least 24 hours in
> advance. At the start of a meeting, the Chair should review the agenda
> and any proposed changes to that agenda." (page 54)
> It is now less than 22 hours before the next scheduled meeting, and no
> agenda (nor any documents that are not replete with errors) has been
> circulated:
> FYI, here is what an "agenda" looks like:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000900.html
> (an example from the IGO PDP in the past --- had to go way back to
> find one that was "proper")
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003109.html (an
> example from the RPM PDP)
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021320.html (an
> example from the GNSO Council)
> INTA put it well, when these Working Group Guidelines were being developed:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/working-group-guidelines/pdfN3FHBo2u9y.pdf
> "the Committee applauds advance circulation of WG meeting agendas, but
> circulating the agendas 24 hours before meetings provides insufficient
> lead time for WG members to review the agendas in light of the other
> professional and personal obligations of WG
> members. "
> While the 24 hours wasn't increased, that demonstrates why it's
> important to give people time to prepare and to be able to respond
> thoughtfully, and why sending it in late hurts members.
> It seems to me that the Chair/Staff are again lackadaisical in taking
> all the time in the world for themselves, but not giving members
> commensurate time. That's fundamentally unfair, and reinforces the
> need to provide the necessary time required to complete our work. It
> would take a superhuman effort to complete our work in what is now 6
> days, given we've still not received various draft documents, and
> there's still much to do to finish off a final report properly (3 or 4
> weeks seems feasible, if and only if people continue to drive the work
> forward).
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf
>> I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan)
>> and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in
>> Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report
>> of this working group through the unilateral imposition of
>> unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively
>> affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct
>> procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have
>> already completed one.
>> On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call",
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html
>> even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a
>> consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an
>> initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I
>> pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was
>> ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
>> with examples of 2 other PDPs.
>> Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents
>> (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at
>> the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair
>> Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair)
>> and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were
>> superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone
>> else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on.
>> However, their response times are slow, at best. For example:
>> i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7
>> appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my
>> first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final
>> report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people)
>> whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a
>> document where there are more group members and obvious divisions,
>> where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to
>> agreement on final text.
>> ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has
>> been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to
>> respond at all.
>> iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018
>> "office hours":
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html
>> with no summary report until a month later.
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
>> And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to
>> write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
>> (attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that
>> obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
>> iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's
>> document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but
>> which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at
>> that) is telling:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html
>> Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue
>> the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely
>> manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing
>> others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the
>> time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to
>> make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of
>> a final report in an impossibly fast manner.
>> That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that
>> he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work.
>> On April 26, 2018, Susan stated:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html
>> "It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive
>> the effort to a final document for presentation to Council."
>> But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed:
>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-10may18-en.pdf
>> "This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going
>> to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4)
>> and
>> " Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not
>> going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the
>> Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you
>> point blank, yes or no.
>> Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes."
>> But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet
>> (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the
>> initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make
>> changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document.
>> Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript
>> demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June
>> deadline for this PDP, see:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf
>> [pages 22-26]
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html
>> It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members,
>> but was imposed on us.
>> Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the
>> GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in
>> the first place.
>> "That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of
>> the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our
>> documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor
>> does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if
>> you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the
>> discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP
>> then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added)
>> Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is
>> illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things
>> ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO
>> Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This
>> never happened.
>> ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP.
>> That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of
>> the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section
>> 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's
>> activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the
>> Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.).
>> In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be
>> given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the
>> July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be
>> made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and
>> timely edits, etc. to keep us on track).
>> [There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see:
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
>> but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner,
>> with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council
>> meeting]
>> Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be
>> cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply
>> intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient
>> time to produce a polished final report.
>> I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with
>> the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to
>> simply pick up the phone and call me!]
>> Sincerely,
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2018-06-12 IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group - IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP - Confluence.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 79205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180611/8d0492f5/2018-06-12IGO-INGOAccesstoCurativeRightsProtectionMechanismsWorkingGroup-IGO-INGOCurativeRightsProtectionMechanismsPDP-Confluence-0001.pdf>

More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list