[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Something Magical Is Happening (was Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus)

[George Kirikos]

Hi Phil (and Heather/Susan/Donna/Rafik),

[changing the subject, so that the show of support thread isn't
interfered with; the show of support thread is at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html

for Heather/Susan/Donna/Rafik to view]

1. The numbers in the summary report were wrong. Susan and/or ICANN
staff wouldn't correct them, despite repeated requests. See:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

2. Lots of other things were wrong with that Summary Report, which were ignored:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html

3. Susan even said, on April 26th:

"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."

The working group, *not* the liaison or the Council. We're driving the
effort ourselves, with or without you. Notice she said "WG", and not
"Chair", either.

4. This isn't the "anonymous" poll that I objected to via the Section
3.7 appeal, either.

5. This isn't even a "poll"  -- re-read the post at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html

whereby folks are publicly and transparently displaying their support
on the mailing list, just like they've been trying to do during calls
and on the mailing list in the past.

6. Consensus is being reached, whether you like it or not. Our hard
work isn't going to be hijacked by that tiny minority that backs
Option #3 (i.e. presumably you, Petter and someone else, if the "3" in
the summary report is even accurate).

If you're unwilling to recognize that we're forming a consensus, then
you might want to contemplate resigning as co-chair. I think the GNSO
Council would face a constitutional crisis if Heather/Susan submit any
report that doesn't recognize the *actual* level of support for the
options that exists, that members are prepared to go on the record
about (unfiltered by staff or Susan in their faulty "summary report").

7. I'd like to know if Petter feels the same way as you do, in his
capacity as co-chair, or whether he's willing to recognize that
something magical is happening, that we're finally coalescing around a
consensus. Is Petter going to stand with Phil, or recognize this
consensus?

8. The recordings of the calls between you/Petter and Susan/Heather
have still not been posted to the wiki (despite being requested
already). Why don't you see that they get posted, with transcripts?
You'll have a lot of time between now and then, since you've said you
have "nothing further to say." Is there something in those recordings
that you don't want the public to see? Remember the transparency
requirements of ICANN and the working group, and that my call was
already posted.

9. I hope others who are interested in displaying publicly their
support for the various options will not be deterred by Phil's post,
and will continue to work to drive this PDP to a successful
conclusion.

Sincerely,

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



On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> While I nominally remain co-chair of this WG, control over it has essentially been assumed by the Chair of the GNSO Council via the Council Liaison, as the WG's authority is solely derived from Council.
>
> I find it both ironic and sad that the WG was brought to a halt by Mr. Kirikos months ago because the co-chairs proposed to poll the full WG membership to initiate the consensus call process, and that he persisted in that appeal even after the co-chairs modified that proposal to assure that the poll would be conducted in a fully transparent matter -- yet now he has elected to conduct his own poll.
>
> Mr. Kirikos has no authority under the GNSO WG Guidelines to conduct such a poll and its results have no official status.
>
> I must also note that option 4 -- referral of any decisions on the IGO CRP matter to the RPM Review WG -- is fundamentally incompatible with any of the other options, which would make policy decisions now within the IGO CRP WG. Yet several members are supporting both option 4 and others. Whether that RPM WG will address IGO immunity issues specifically, or sovereign immunity issues more generally, and whether addressing that subject requires a Charter change, will be determined by its membership at the appropriate time.
>
> The Recommended Next Steps contained in the "SUMMARY REPORT FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL LIAISON ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE IGO-INGO CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP WORKING GROUP (12 April 2018)" continue to be those that govern this WG as it comes to a conclusion.
>
> I know that some members of this WG may wish to engage me in debate or dialogue regarding the above statement, but I shall have nothing further to say in advance of Thursday's call.
>
>
> 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