[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Why hasn't Susan and ICANN staff posted the corrected input counts yet?

[Paul Tattersfield]

Dear George,

Too much detail and irrelevant complexity (as with Swaine) just allows
those with an ulterior motive to hide bad things.The final report is easy
and much more than a few pages page shouldn’t really be required.

*Executive Summary*
The IGOs are never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after initiating
proceedings and UDRP is not the right process for dealing with the cited
harms.

*Introduction*
The introduction should set out a very simple reasoning on the core issues
such as:

The IGOs have defensible rights
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000778.html

The IGO’s rights do not extend to jurisdictional immunity after initiating
proceedings
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001136.html and
given the expense and time involved in its preparation a brief explanation
is warranted as to why the Swaine Memo is not relevant to the working
group’s deliberations.

UDRP is not the correct tool for dealing with the harms the IGOs have asked
for help with
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000883.html
#Practical considerations.

*Conclusion*
UDRP can never be the most effective way of dealing with the harms (domains
with credit card fraud for fund raising campaigns for disaster relief etc.)
the IGOs are looking to cure. Not only are the IGOs never entitled to
jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings but equally
importantly given the types of domains involved and the two months or so it
takes to reach a successful determination UDRP is unlikely to ever be the
best way to resolve such harms.

*Recommendations*
ICANN should advise the IGOs and INGOs to contact the registrars of any
domains involved in the harms they are seeking address. The working group
has found the overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to deal with
such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner. In the unlikely event
that a registrar would not wish to help ICANN has contractual provisions in
place to investigate the reasons for such a decision.

END

*Wider improvements to the multistakeholder model*
We could have improved things for IGOs we could have gone a long way to
meeting GAC advice but those leading this working group chose for their own
reasons not to even explore that route. The only other issue I can see of
any value at this point is what can be learned from this mess.


The bigger issue is does ICANN want to prevent the ridiculous situation the
co-chairs have been allowed to create from ever happening again? Part of me
worries that either ICANN has no real motivation or perhaps no ability as
it is currently constituted to correct the kind of behaviour we have just
witnessed. If this the case then it is a far more serious matter than the
simple directional failure of a single working group, rather it calls in to
question the effectiveness of the whole multistakeholder model.

A first step I consider ICANN should remove the voting rights of all of
those that hold the office of co-chair or chair on consensus matters. The
co-chair and chair function should be purely administrative since the
management of process affords them power that other working group members
do not enjoy. It should never be possible for any one person to bring
forward a proposal as ridiculous as option #3 and seriously expect it to be
able to have it forced through using such sustained multiple abuses of
process to the point where process itself collapses.

ICANN needs to look very carefully at the GNSO and what it is and is not
achieving. The IGO immunity issue nonsense does not stand alone even
amongst current issues.

GDPR /WHOIS is likely to be a looming disaster of ICANN’s own making, again
like the IGO immunity issues GDPR can be very simply resolved
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/05/02/consensus-be-damned-heres-how-transfers-will-work-at-tucows-after-gdpr/
(#comment 4) yet it is likely ICANN is going to be responsible for creating
another enormous mess.

UDRP was incredibly well drafted and steps must be taken to ensure that the
RPM working group is not led to a similar disaster. It is ironic that those
who were leading chorus to change UDRP have not been able to demonstrate
they have neither the ability nor the humility to actually improve on what
is already there.

Yours sincerely,



Paul



On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 1:23 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Seventeen days ago, on the April 19th call, I pointed out that the
> input was miscounted (among other things), and Susan specifically
> stated that:
>
> "We will check on a number of people that provided input and correct
> that in the report."
>
> [bottom of page 17 of the transcript at:
>
> https://community.icann.org/x/wAEFBQ
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84214208/
> transcript%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%2019April.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=
> 1524230243000&api=v2
> ]
>
> Why has this not been done yet? This is only a count of 9 vs 10
> people, and shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and certainly not
> more than 2 weeks (and counting).
>
> This was also but one of the issues I raised in the previous email to
> the mailing list:
>
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
>
> in the attached PDF, and hasn't been addressed.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180507/d81f961b/attachment.html>