December 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
by George Kirikos Jan. 2, 2018

Jan. 2, 2018

Hi folks, I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to me. I of course do not withdraw the appeal. I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't have 2 days ago? Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency and accountability mechanisms. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear George, > > > > This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the > co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. > > > > Dear George, > > > > We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the > IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated > that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the > GNSO Working Group Guidelines > (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) > That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes > that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted … > should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that > the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request > an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering > Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this > Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January > 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that > you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working > Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be > invited to sit in on the call. > > > > Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that > you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group > consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the > Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of > the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the > Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO > Policy Development Processes. > > > > Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as > prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we > will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. > If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a > withdrawal of your appeal. > > > > > > Best regards, > > Philip and Petter > >

1 3

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of co-chairs (was Re: Announcement: No Working Group call this week)
by George Kirikos Dec. 24, 2017

Dec. 24, 2017

Dear Ms. Forrest, Thank you, and happy holidays. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mr Kirikos, > > I confirm receipt of your email and acknowledge your invocation of the > section 3.7 procedure. > > Council leadership met with staff and the PDP co-chairs just prior to the > end of the week to ensure you received a reply prior to the end of year > shutdown. Some minor delay in setting up a discussion time is inevitable > given that between the members of Council leadership and the co-chairs and > relevant staff we cover nearly every time zone on the globe, but I believe > we were successful in getting an email to you before Saturday in your time > zone. > > Section 3.7 requires in first instance a meeting between the party raising > the matter and the PDP chair/s. If other PDP members supporting the > invocation of section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, my reading of > the relevant section suggests that is entirely appropriate. > > Per section 3.7, after that meeting has taken place, if you would like to > proceed to the next step meeting, that will be arranged. > > The availability of PDP co-chairs and ICANN staff is limited this week by > end of year holidays (and, in my case in the southern hemisphere, also > summer holiday closures) but I assure you we will arrange the first instance > meeting for you and other interested members as soon as possible. I will > take the opportunity in the interim to carefully review the records at the > links you have provided. > > Kind regards, > > Heather Forrest > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:10 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> It has been 2 days since my email of Tuesday, and the co-chairs have >> not contacted me to discuss my appeal of their decision to invoke yet >> another anonymous poll, one that is inconsistent with ICANN's >> transparency requirements. Both co-chairs attended yesterday's RPM PDP >> call, and time could have been set aside to talk either before or >> after that call. Or, time could have been set aside to talk today, >> during our regular IGO PDP meeting timeslot that was cancelled. I was >> available continuously (except for sleep!). >> >> I also asked multiple times (all on the record, on the public mailing >> list) for the identity and contact details of the relevant "chair of >> the Chartering Organization or their designated representative" for a >> formal appeal, and was not provided with those details Since Heather >> Forrest is the current chair of the GNSO, I'm cc'ing her on this email >> (although, perhaps she can refer it to her "designated >> representative", if she's not the appropriate person). >> >> I'll note that I am not alone in my concerns. Seven PDP members >> (including myself) share those concerns, as noted in the public >> mailing list archive: >> >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/date.html >> >> which is a highly significant portion of the actively engaged members >> of this PDP. >> >> I ask that Ms. Forrest intervene at this time to ensure that the >> long-established ICANN transparency requirements are followed going >> forward. >> >> [For background reading, and for Ms. Forrest's benefit, the above >> mailing list archive discusses the relevant issues, e.g. in my posts: >> >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000989.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000993.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000998.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001000.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001002.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001005.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001007.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001008.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001013.html >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001016.html >> >> although it might be easier to simply read all posts sequentially >> (they're relatively short, starting from the chronological archive >> (very first link above) with a subject of "Consensus Process concerns >> -- settling on designations" and working forward, to get all >> statements).] >> >> I'm sending this email now as it's just after 10:00 am New Zealand >> time on Friday, and the co-chairs have proposed that their survey will >> go out on Friday (in North America), perhaps hoping to avoid the >> appeal by "running out the clock" arguing that "the holidays >> intervened" (which would be a problem of their own creation). >> >> Yesterday, Mary Wong of ICANN staff claimed that: >> >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001015.html >> >> "For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all >> feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will >> respond to the mailing list shortly." >> >> but this has not happened. >> >> I regret that it has come to this, as I've bent over backwards to >> attempt to resolve this issue that has many in this PDP concerned. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> > Dear Mary, >> > >> > According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison": >> > >> > >> > https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf >> > >> > who can assist and intervene when the working group is having >> > problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as >> > it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and >> > inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous >> > comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have >> > decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to >> > guide policymaking. >> > >> > Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the >> > guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. >> > Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I >> > intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or >> > their designated representative. Please identify that person, and >> > their contact details. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > >> > George Kirikos >> > 416-588-0269 >> > http://www.leap.com/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note >> >> that >> >> there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We >> >> will >> >> resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline >> >> outlined >> >> by the co-chairs (below). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the >> >> Next-Generation >> >> Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was >> >> brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and >> >> Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not >> >> utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially >> >> different from the situation in our Working Group. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to >> >> be >> >> published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the >> >> respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid >> >> responses, >> >> which will help guide their initial designation of the options for >> >> Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, >> >> 2, and >> >> 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are >> >> published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG >> >> will be >> >> identified with those providing input and feedback. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN >> >> staff >> >> supporting your work, >> >> >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> >> >> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 >> >> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >> >> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to >> >> determining >> >> consensus >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter >> >> Rindforth (WG co-chairs). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the >> >> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully >> >> asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end >> >> point; >> >> that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood >> >> and >> >> discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional >> >> options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group >> >> participants regarding which option should prevail. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral >> >> discussion >> >> of the three additional options that will be presented in a final >> >> consensus >> >> call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG >> >> consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, >> >> and >> >> that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand >> >> the >> >> intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus >> >> call, >> >> we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please >> >> respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is >> >> needed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The >> >> purpose >> >> of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of >> >> support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG >> >> members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice >> >> for >> >> addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided >> >> with >> >> means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each >> >> of >> >> the other five options. These comments can indicate support or >> >> opposition >> >> for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG >> >> members >> >> wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although >> >> any WG >> >> member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The >> >> poll >> >> will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results >> >> of >> >> the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members >> >> and >> >> will be included as a section of our Final Report. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then >> >> share >> >> their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each >> >> option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January >> >> 11th, >> >> 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. >> >> The >> >> GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to >> >> provide >> >> feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus >> >> level >> >> for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under >> >> the >> >> procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is >> >> completed >> >> we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and >> >> will >> >> provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit >> >> Minority >> >> views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the >> >> GNSO >> >> Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission >> >> deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. >> >> Thank >> >> you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >

1 0

Message from the Working Group co-chairs
by Mary Wong Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Dear all, Please see the message below that staff is sending on behalf of Phil and Petter, the co-chairs of this IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group. To all Working Group members and observers: In view of the objections and questions that have been raised by some members concerning the co-chairs’ authority to proceed with a poll as basis for a subsequent Consensus Call as proposed, we have decided to seek guidance from the GNSO Council, which is the Chartering Organization for this Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group. Under ICANN’s Bylaws, it is the Council that is responsible for managing the GNSO’s PDPs. Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process. With best regards, Phil and Petter

1 0

Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of co-chairs (was Re: Announcement: No Working Group call this week)
by George Kirikos Dec. 21, 2017

Dec. 21, 2017

Hi folks, It has been 2 days since my email of Tuesday, and the co-chairs have not contacted me to discuss my appeal of their decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll, one that is inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements. Both co-chairs attended yesterday's RPM PDP call, and time could have been set aside to talk either before or after that call. Or, time could have been set aside to talk today, during our regular IGO PDP meeting timeslot that was cancelled. I was available continuously (except for sleep!). I also asked multiple times (all on the record, on the public mailing list) for the identity and contact details of the relevant "chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative" for a formal appeal, and was not provided with those details Since Heather Forrest is the current chair of the GNSO, I'm cc'ing her on this email (although, perhaps she can refer it to her "designated representative", if she's not the appropriate person). I'll note that I am not alone in my concerns. Seven PDP members (including myself) share those concerns, as noted in the public mailing list archive: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/date.html which is a highly significant portion of the actively engaged members of this PDP. I ask that Ms. Forrest intervene at this time to ensure that the long-established ICANN transparency requirements are followed going forward. [For background reading, and for Ms. Forrest's benefit, the above mailing list archive discusses the relevant issues, e.g. in my posts: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000989.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000993.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000998.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001000.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001002.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001005.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001007.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001008.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001013.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001016.html although it might be easier to simply read all posts sequentially (they're relatively short, starting from the chronological archive (very first link above) with a subject of "Consensus Process concerns -- settling on designations" and working forward, to get all statements).] I'm sending this email now as it's just after 10:00 am New Zealand time on Friday, and the co-chairs have proposed that their survey will go out on Friday (in North America), perhaps hoping to avoid the appeal by "running out the clock" arguing that "the holidays intervened" (which would be a problem of their own creation). Yesterday, Mary Wong of ICANN staff claimed that: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001015.html "For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will respond to the mailing list shortly." but this has not happened. I regret that it has come to this, as I've bent over backwards to attempt to resolve this issue that has many in this PDP concerned. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > Dear Mary, > > According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison": > > https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf > > who can assist and intervene when the working group is having > problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as > it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and > inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous > comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have > decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to > guide policymaking. > > Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the > guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. > Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I > intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or > their designated representative. Please identify that person, and > their contact details. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that >> there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will >> resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined >> by the co-chairs (below). >> >> >> >> The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation >> Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was >> brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and >> Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not >> utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially >> different from the situation in our Working Group. >> >> >> >> In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be >> published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the >> respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, >> which will help guide their initial designation of the options for >> Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and >> 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support). >> >> >> >> Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are >> published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be >> identified with those providing input and feedback. >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff >> supporting your work, >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> >> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 >> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining >> consensus >> >> >> >> The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter >> Rindforth (WG co-chairs). >> >> >> >> >> >> It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the >> options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully >> asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; >> that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and >> discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional >> options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group >> participants regarding which option should prevail. >> >> >> >> Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: >> >> >> >> If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion >> of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus >> call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG >> consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and >> that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the >> intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, >> we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please >> respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is >> needed. >> >> >> >> On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose >> of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of >> support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG >> members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for >> addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with >> means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of >> the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition >> for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members >> wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG >> member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll >> will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of >> the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and >> will be included as a section of our Final Report. >> >> >> >> Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share >> their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each >> option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, >> 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The >> GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide >> feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level >> for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the >> procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed >> we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will >> provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority >> views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO >> Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission >> deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank >> you. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

Announcement: No Working Group call this week
by Mary Wong Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Dear all, As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below). The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group. In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support). Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback. Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.

8 12

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame and continous adding of new proposals
by Paul Keating Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Phil, I respect your opinion but disagree with it. I know that we are all tired of this project and want to see it finished. However, I do not want to do that at the risk of violating what I see are clear rules. In that regard while I support the use of polls those polls must be: Restricted to voting members Be transparent identifying the person voting and what was voted for. Be publicly available for all purposes as WG records. Paul From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 3:20 AM To: "petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame and continous adding of new proposals > I appreciate the thoughtful statement from my co-chair. > > I share his view that, whether or not any of the options before us receives > consensus support, it is our duty and responsibility to deliver a conclusive > final report rather than recommend that another working group, which already > has a very broad and challenging mandate, be asked to add to that burden and > reconsider a matter on which we have labored for three and a half years. > > 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 > > From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf > Of Petter Rindforth > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 6:17 PM > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame > and continous adding of new proposals > > > Dear members of our WG, > > > > Just a few personal comments, as I can fully understand that it sometimes may > be hard to remember all steps, discussions and decisions we have made together > since our first meeting in August 11, 2014. > > > > As you all know, we have deeply discussed all possible variations during our > WG calls, and also already at ICANN52 in Singapore, at February 13, 2015 had a > full day F2F meeting (from 9.30 17.15), including 75 minutes discussion > based on George Kirikos suggestion regarding > > possible ³mechanics² for IGO filing. > > > > At April 29, 2015, we received the GAC reply to a number of questions we had > sent to them. As to Question 3: ³In opposing [amendments to the UDRP and URS] > does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its > ³Mutual Jurisdiction² provisions to address specific sovereign immunity > concerns of IGOs? How should a curative rights process appropriately deal with > this problem while also ensuring adequate due process protections for > registrants?², GAC replied that: > > > > ³The GAC notes that the IGOs, in their communication to you of 16 January > 2015, have advised that they consider their claimed immunity from national > jurisdiction to be fundamental to their role as international bodies. There > are non-judicial means to ensure due process, such as arbitration, which the > GAC believes should be considered in more detail.² > > > > At February 20, 2016, we still had the goal to present our Initial Report > prior to ICANN55 in Marrakech (March 5 10, 2016) > > > > The Timeline was discussed and updated at our August 4, 2016 meeting: > > > > Month of August 2016 (after 4 August WG call) straw poll of members on > elements to be addressed in a draft Initial Report; staff preparation of > outline of report with those elements > > 1 & 8 September discuss outline and elements; staff to begin filling out > draft Initial Report > > 15 & 22 September discuss preliminary conclusions > > 30 September staff to prepare and circulate draft Initial Report > > 6, 13, 20 October discuss Initial Report > > 24 October publish Initial Report for public comment > > Early November (ICANN57) present conclusions in Initial Report for community > discussion > > Mid-end November begin discussion of community feedback and public comments > received > > 3 December public comment forum closes; staff to prepare summary and Public > Comment Review Tool > > 8 & 15 December continue discussions of public comments received (no meeting > on 22 or 29 December) > > 5 & 12 January 2017 continue discussion of public comments received; > determine if preliminary conclusions and any open questions need to be > updated; staff to prepare draft Final Report > > 19 & 26 January discuss final recommendations; staff to circulate draft > Final Report by end-January > > 2 February discuss Final Report > > 6 February - commence formal consensus call > > 9 & 16 February (only if needed) WG meeting > > 20 February conclude formal consensus call > > 27 February 2017 sign off on Final Report; chairs to submit Final Report to > GNSO Council > > > > On our meetings in December 2016 January 2017, we deeply discussed our > Initial Report, and fully agreed to ask for comments on 2 options: > > > > Where an IGO succeeds in asserting its claim of jurisdictional immunity in a > court of mutual jurisdiction, the Working Group recommends that in that case: > > > > Option 1 - the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor > UDRP or URS shall be vitiated; or > > > > Option 2 the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor > UDRP or URS may be brought before the [name of arbitration entity] for de novo > review and determination. > > > > Among the comments received, apart from IGO¹s, there were also comments from > Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as from individuals (members of > our WG), meaning that everyone had the possibility to comment and adding new > proposals, for further discussion in our WG. > > > > We discussed the public comments received on our meetings at March 30, April > 6, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, 2017 > > > > At the May 4 meeting it was noticed a comment from some IGO.s (OECD, UN, UPU, > WHO & WIPO), on the time frame, based on a discussion of it was need to have > another external legal advice on Article 6ter: ³IGO colleagues share the > OECD¹s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has > already been an extensive and resource-intensive process², meaning that also > IGO representatives wanted to have a result/decision of our work without > further delays. > > > > At July 13, 2017, we still discussed the 2 options (Options 1 & 2 for > Recommendation #4) > > > > On our July 20, call, we discussed three new options: > > > > OPTION 3 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 > > Suggested by Paul Keating on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017): > > https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw > > > > OPTION 4 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 > > Suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June 2017): > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html > <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html> > > > > > > ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: > > From Paul Keating, via email to the mailing list, 14 July 2017: > > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igoingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html > > > > These were further discussed on July 27, August 3 (Options 3, 4, 5, 6), and > September 7 (Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) > > > > It is also noted that on July 26, we discussed and agreed upon a new draft > timeline for completion of our WG, with December 7, 2017 for our WG to > Finalize Report, and noting that December 11, 2017 was a Document deadline for > GNSO Council December meeting (either submit Final Report here, or if more > time is needed, aim to submit for GNSO Council meeting in January 2018). > > > > On our September 26, 2017 meeting, we agreed on Option A, B and C, which was > further discussed on October 5, in preparation for a Surveyto detect consensus > on Options A, B or C. > > > > At our December 7, 2017 call, we discussed Options A, B, C and George Kirikos > Option 6. > > > > At our December 14 call we had three additional proposals (as well as A, B, > C): from Zak Muscovitch, George Kirikos and Paul Tattersfield respectively, > that were discussed. > > > > To summarize: > > I think it is clear to all of us, that we have discussed our topic/s deeply > for a long time. I also think it is clear that some WG members support A, > where other WG members support C (including myself). Continuously adding new > proposals at the last minute, and thereby arguing that our topics have not > already been fully discussed, will not change that fact. > > > > I deeply respect the knowledge and experience of all my fellow WG members, and > that is why I also hope that all of you agrees that the reason why we actively > join a WG is to find a solution and recommendation on specific topic/s (and > keeping the time frame), rather than conclude that we shall refrain from > taking our responsibility and instead transfer the subject to another working > group. > > > > All the 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(a)fenixlegal.eu > > www.fenixlegal.eu <http://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 <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> > > Thank you > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

Acknowledging receipt (Re: [Ext] Re: Announcement: No Working Group call this week)
by Mary Wong Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Dear Paul, This email is being sent to acknowledge receipt of your message below. As your message and this reply are also sent to the Working Group mailing list, they will therefore be included on the public record: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001010.html. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:00 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Cc: Andrew Rosener <andrew(a)mediaoptions.com>, Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com>, Nat Cohen <ncohen(a)telepathy.com>, Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week Dear Mary, Please note that I fully support the email from George posted Tue Dec 19 23:35:58 UTC 2017 No poll should be anonymous. In every WG I have been involved in that uses Polls the participant must: State their full name Confirm membership Confirm their understanding that only full members may participate Confirm that any response is public and will be retained as part of the official WG record and be subject to inspection by anyone. In the face of such historical use and the authority cited by George, I continue to object to the use of anonymous polling. As I have previously expressed, polls are useful when compliant as they allow participation by those not able to attend the telephone call due to conflicts. I ask the Chairs to reverse their apparent course of action and undertake things properly in an open and transparent manner. Please kindly confirm receipt and that this email will be included in the WG records. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es[law.es]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__law.es_&d=DwMFAw&c=FmY1…> 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(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@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(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:10 AM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week Dear all, As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below). The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group. In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support). Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback. Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

2 1

Option #6 -- final text
by George Kirikos Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Hi folks, After debating how best to word the final text, I think I've come up with a concise representation of the proposal (open to friendly amendments). As noted in earlier discussions, it can either be fully incorporated into the existing "Option C" (which I believe had been the original intention when the options had been aggregated from 6 numeric options into 3 alphabetized ones, but option #6 had been overlooked). Or alternatively, it can become an independent option on its own. --------- start of final text ------------------ The text of both the UDRP and URS rules and policies shall be modified so that, in the event a domain name dispute (UDRP or URS) is initiated by an IGO as complainant and a registrant commences an "in rem" action in a court of mutual jurisdiction concerning that domain name, the registrar shall treat that court action in the same manner as if an "in personam" action had been brought directly against the IGO. --------- end of final text ----------- I believe that text captures Option #6 in its entirety, without doing a line-by-line modification of the UDRP and URS text within the proposal itself (leaves that task to an implementation review team). Only a few paragraphs of the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted. I've also narrowed the focus to only IGOs above, but it could easily be adapted (and indeed, implemented more elegantly) for any type of complainant, not just IGOs (i.e. it was simply sloppy drafting of the UDRP/URS that limited domain locking and maintenance of the status quo by the registrars to "in personam" cases at present, as the drafters hadn't contemplated that court actions might be initiated in any other manner). For the background of this proposal, previous emails cover it at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000944.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000957.html If Zak's recent proposal is adopted, whereby these multiple interrelated issues we've identified which have root causes that have broader impacts not just involving IGOs are forwarded directly to the RPM PDP for deeper analysis and consideration, then this Option #6 would merit inclusion in that, given that there's really nothing specific to IGOs in this proposal (although that I was forced to reword it as such), except that we discovered this issue in the context of an IGO PDP working group. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
by Paul Keating Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Dear Mary, Please note that I fully support the email from George posted Tue Dec 19 23:35:58 UTC 2017 No poll should be anonymous. In every WG I have been involved in that uses Polls the participant must: State their full name Confirm membership Confirm their understanding that only full members may participate Confirm that any response is public and will be retained as part of the official WG record and be subject to inspection by anyone. In the face of such historical use and the authority cited by George, I continue to object to the use of anonymous polling. As I have previously expressed, polls are useful when compliant as they allow participation by those not able to attend the telephone call due to conflicts. I ask the Chairs to reverse their apparent course of action and undertake things properly in an open and transparent manner. Please kindly confirm receipt and that this email will be included in the WG records. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://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(a)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(a)icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 12:10 AM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week > Dear all, > > As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there > will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our > discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the > co-chairs (below). > > The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation > Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was > brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter > believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize > anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from > the situation in our Working Group. > > In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll with all results to be > published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent > will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will > help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 > (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to > continue to have at least consensus support). > > Finally, please note that once the co-chairs¹ initial designations are > published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be > identified with those providing input and feedback. > > Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff > supporting your work, > Mary > > > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> > Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining > consensus > > > > The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter > Rindforth (WG co-chairs). > > > It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options > for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an > immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all > issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and > that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy > consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding > which option should prevail. > > Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: > > * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion > of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus > call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG > consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that > email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent > and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will > hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the > mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. > > * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose > of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of > support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members > to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing > the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add > comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five > options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the > options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. > Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free > to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open > until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as > all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a > section of our Final Report. > > * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share > their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option > enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in > order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs¹ evaluation. The GNSO WG > Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on > those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option > included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided > in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a > draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable > time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to > have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to > meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for > its February 22nd meeting. > > Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
by Mary Wong Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.

6 13