[GNSO-RPM-WG] Note to Mr. Kirikos Regarding His Characterization of URS Sub-team Recommendations as "Wishlists"

Tue Oct 23 11:33:15 UTC 2018

Phil,

I find your email very confusing, so perhaps you can explain it better
than you have. Are you proposing that the word "wishlist" be banned
from use at ICANN? Which other words do you propose to be banned?
Especially given that your email was written as "Chair" -- is that
email an official position of all the co-chairs and ICANN?

I draw your attention to the chat at :

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002623.html

where Ms. Kristine Dorrain also used the term "wishlist", in this very PDP.

"Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, I think that's
right. the key is to figure out the topic.  Most of the questions are
actually "proposed solutions" or someone's wishlist."

Or that ALAC wiki at:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/DNS+Security+Issues+within+ICANN%27s+Remit

"WG5 Policy proposal Wishlist and development of the Policy proposal
to be worked out"

I find your email particularly bizarre, given the use by others of
terms like "unicorns", "throwing spaghetti at the wall", etc.

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003419.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181012/898a79c2/AttendanceACchatRPM12Oct2018-0001.pdf

I'm happy to take this discussion off-list, to a different venue, if
you'd prefer.

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> Mr. Kirikos:
>
>
>
> This note is sent in my capacity as co-chair. It is in reference to a
> statement you made in chat during yesterday’s final session of the WG. A
> full excerpt of the relevant chat exchange appears below. The statement I am
> commenting upon is, “George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards
> (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their
> wishlists).” I did not comment in real time on this assertion because I did
> not wish to disrupt the important and constructive discussion that was
> taking place within the WG.
>
>
>
> The assertion that sub-team members seek to elevate the status of sub-team
> recommendations because that would advantage their “wishlists” (sic) appears
> to imply that the recommendations consist of wish lists. I believe that this
> assertion is untrue as to both the motivations of sub-team members and the
> nature of the recommendations. Sub-teams were open to participation by an WG
> member and you could have joined any or all of them. I participated in
> almost every meeting of the Providers sub-team and saw no evidence that its
> members were pursuing any personal or organizational agenda. What I did see
> was serious consideration of all available data, and constructive efforts to
> develop and compromise on responsive recommendations seeking to correct
> operational and policy shortfalls revealed by the data. Sub-team
> recommendations were subsequently vetted and extensively discussed by the
> full WG and generally adopted for public comment purposes absent significant
> change. However they are characterized they carry greater weight than
> individual URS proposals due to their joint development.
>
>
>
> I perceive your use of the term “wishlists” pejorative in intent, in both
> implying that sub-team members joined to pursue preordained agendas, and
> that the resulting recommendations are fanciful or unrealistic. For example,
> using the term wish list in that sense, if I believed in Santa Claus I would
> send him a wish list that started with a private jet whisking me to a five
> star resort on a tropical island, and finding a gift wrapped Aston Martin in
> my garage upon return.
>
>
>
> Finally, I find your use of the term particularly inappropriate given that
> all fourteen of your individual URS proposals, including one to eliminate
> the URS entirely, are going to be included in the Initial Report for the
> solicitation of public comment. If others shared your attitude they might
> observe that those fourteen proposals constitute your personal URS wish
> list.
>
>
>
> In closing, I strongly urge you to refrain from using terms that denigrate
> the efforts and ideas of other WG members, and to confine your remarks to
> the merits or deficiencies of proposed operational or policy changes.
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************************************************************
>
>
>
> George Kirikos: (13:55) Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have
> support.
>
>       Griffin Barnett: (13:56) Agree with Susan re differentiating sub-team
> recommendations vs. "individual" WG member proposals
>
>       George Kirikos: (13:56) <COMMENT>Sub-team recommendations don't
> necessarily have any support outside the subteam. So, disagree with
> Susan.</COMMENT>
>
>       Greg Shatan: (13:56) I thought we were treating the subteam
> recommendations as Preliminary Recommendations..
>
>       George Kirikos: (13:57) <COMMENT>Disagree with Phil. It was a
> rebuttable assumption not of SUPPORT, but support for INCLUSION in the
> Initial Report.</COMMENT>
>
>       Greg Shatan: (13:58) Disagree with George. Agree with Phil.
>
>       George Kirikos: (13:59) GregS: See page 6 of the slides (next).
>
>       Greg Shatan: (13:59) Glad to hear that Panama City was not a fever
> dream.
>
>       George Kirikos: (13:59) "s have a rebuttable presumption, subject to
> WGfeedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in
> theInitial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input;"
>
>       Georges Nahitchevansky: (14:00) The individual proposals are just
> that, proposals by an individual and should be noted as such.  The sub-team
> recommendations had multiple data points and views -- and compromises were
> reached. They represent way more consensus than a proposal by an individual
> and should should be in a different category.  As an aside, any individual
> could have joined one or all of the sub-teams.  So if someon, such as George
> K, did not join any of the groups when he could of then I think he should be
> barred form aguing they have no support (after no joining when you could is
> akin to consent that the sub-teams are constituted were adequate)
>
>       George Kirikos: (14:01) @GeorgesN: disagree, because that standard
> wasn't set *before* the creation of the subteams.
>
>       George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by
> those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists).
>
>       Martin Silva: (14:02) + 1 on Georges
>
>       Martin Silva: (14:02) lot of us were in subteams doing a lot of
> compromises all around
>
>
>
>
>
> 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-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg