[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!

Wed May 9 13:40:47 UTC 2018

To echo what Paul Keating has said, let me remind the working group of
what Phil told the group back in October, when the procedural issues
first arose:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000877.html

"Finally, If a majority of the members of this WG believe that the
co-chairs are managing it in an inadequate or biased manner, and are
in any way suppressing members’ viewpoints or relevant facts, I for
one will be happy to step aside and let them select a replacement to
handle the task of completing our work and gaining approval of the
final product by the GNSO Council."

You should step aside, Phil, for the good of the work. Folks are ready
to complete the work, but you're not recognizing the viewpoints and
relevant facts that are being presented transparently on this list. I
don't want to be Chair, by the way (one of my asks in the Section 3.7
appeal was for a neutral chair to be appointed, so we can finish our
work).

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
> Petter,
>
> With all respect I find your email below to be both misleading and
> counter-productive.
>
> George’s appeal had the goals set out in the body of the appeal.  They never
> changed during the appeal process.  I know because was a participant in
> most, if not all of the  conference calls dealing with the appeal.   And
> frankly I supported his position and right to appeal.
>
> The appeal was driven largely by the perception that the co-chairs were
> attempting to force the group to adopt their preferred option (#3).  In an
> effort to support #3, the co-chairs referenced attempted to paint it as the
> only politically acceptable solution.  You both also attempted to undermine
> opposition by painting it as originating from a group that was
> representative of only one group that was economic aligned.
>
> Since the appeal process began there has been no work undertaken by the WG.
> The attempt by staff and Council representatives to describe consensus has
> been flawed in-as-muchas it did not properly count let alone describe the
> results of their “investigation”.
>
> Things have continued to fester and no process has been made towards
> developing a final report.  There have been no calls and no post-appeal
> attempt by any of the co-chairs to investigate, confirm or consilidate
> consensus so that drafting of a final report can begin.
>
> As to George’s recent attempt to solicit consensus views, I applaud him and
> have participated.  His attempts are merely filling the vacuum left as a
> result of non-action by the co-chairs.  You will also note that contrary to
> the initial idea (an anonymous poll) that was suggested by Co-chairs (which
> lead to the appeal), George’s email reflects a transparent approach that
> includes the member name.
>
> The “replies” from Phil – and now from you – do not address any of the
> substantive issues we are facing as a WG.  Rather they seem to be more
> bickering about process.  We need to move past this and get back to work.
>
> As a member I respectfully request the the Co-Chairs re-start the process by
> initiating WG calls so that the results of the email poll can be discussed
> and others encouraged to participate either by email or during the calls.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
>
> Law.es
>
> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
>
> Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
>
> Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
>
> Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
>
> Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
>
> Skype: Prk-Spain
>
> email:  Paul at law.es
>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
> INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE
> INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM
> IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
> PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE
> EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
>
>
>
> Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules
> governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained
> herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be
> used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
> any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be
> used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
>
>
>
> NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
> ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS
> FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
> WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED
> HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
>
>
>
>
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:42 PM
> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Something Magical Is Happening (was Re:
> Public Display of Possible Consensus)
>
> Dear All WG members,
>
> As you are all well aware about, it is one single WG member's action that
> has stopped us for finalizing our vote, decision and report. Mr Kirikos have
> been very distinct in his efforts to prevent us other WG members from
> continuing our work.
>
> Mr Kirikos have indeed been successful in his plans to move the
> decision-making power from this WG to the GNSO Council.
>
> All of us that have spent so many hours of our working time to find an
> acceptable solution have to live with this result.
>
> If Mr Kirikos had had honest plans to work together for an acceptable and
> effective result, taking into account all groups of interest, we had already
> by the end of 2017 had the official vote, which is now unofficially for some
> reason initiated privately 5 months later, in a way that normally (if
> suggested by someone else) had been strongly opposed by Mr Kirikos...
>
> It had indeed been good if we (the WG group) at least had possibilities to
> have informal meetings and discussions during these 5 months, but we had to
> follow the formalities and the fact that the section 3.7 appeal of December
> 19, 2017 was processing, and the result of that.
>
>
> Finally, to all of you fellow WG members that joined this WG initially with
> the goal to find a workable solution on our topics, considering both IGO and
> domain holders interest, that have participated in discussions in a
> practical and decent way, providing good ideas during these years, it has
> indeed been a pleasure to work with you. I certainly hope that we in some
> way  - despite the situation – can at least have some recommendations
> accepted (at least those others that we made conclusions on at an early
> stage) by GNSO Council.
>
> Best,
> Petter
>
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>
>
>
>
>
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Sweden
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> www.fenixlegal.eu
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
> whom it is addressed.
> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and
> attorney work product.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> requested not to read,
> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
> Thank you
>
>
> 8 maj 2018 21:49:02 +02:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp