By: George Kirikos Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. Website: http://www.leap.com/ Date: May 21, 2021 In the comment submitted by the Intellectual Property Constituency, https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gnso-rpm-pdp-phase-1-final-recommend... appear to claim, without evidence, that I made "legal threats to the Working Group co-chairs" and that there were "delays in the Working Group's progress". These are both false statements. Any communications to the co-chairs can easily be reviewed, and there were no "legal threats" from me or my representatives, who only sought to ensure due process. Furthermore, Phil Corwin (one of the three co-chairs) personally admitted that there was no actual disruption to the work as noted in the March 10, 2019 letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gross-to-jeffrey-10mar1... (pages 1-2, section 2) where Phil Corwin is quoted as saying: "Goran’s statement that, “WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DISPUTES WITHIN THE GROUP, AND IT'S MORE OR LESS BEEN STALLED FOR THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS” is factually incorrect. Greg Shatan’s ESB complaint was filed in June, so its resolution has been stalled for four months. However, the WG has made substantial progress on its work during the past few months, including the consideration, and adoption for Initial Report public comment purposes, of 34 sub-team recommendations and 33 individual proposals for URS operational and policy modifications. However, the escalation of outside counsel involvement beyond the original ESB complaint to occurrences within WG meetings does threaten its further progress absent a satisfactory resolution." which cited an email posted to the GNSO Council mailing list on October 25, 2018, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-October/021981.html It's no surprise that the IPC gets things wrong, and is unable to cite evidence --- that's how its members routinely operated throughout this and other ICANN working groups. It's no surprise that they seek to weaponize the Expected Standards of Behaviour to remove their policy opponents, because they believe that **anyone** who counters their misinformation and weak arguments is "disruptive" and must be removed. By the way, if you review the history of ICANN, one of the few entities that has actually engaged in litigation is Verisign itself, who sued ICANN and "Does 1-50" (which presumably would have included many community volunteers): https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/verisign-v-icann-2012-02-25-en It's funny that no one has removed Verisign from policy debates or working group memberships, due to their *actual* litigation. This is further demonstration of the "double standards" that are employed, to eliminate policy opponents from policy debate. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/