May 2018 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Public Display of Possible Consensus
by George Kirikos May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Hi folks, Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus. The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html Briefly: Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains Option 3: arbitration Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam") Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template ---------------------------------- Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: ---------------------------------- For myself: Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice) Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise Option 3: no, I can't support this Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options Option 6: yes, I support mediation Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

10 13

LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!
by Paul Keating May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Petter, With all respect I find your email below to be both misleading and counter-productive. George¹s 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 ³investigation². 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 George¹s 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), George¹s email reflects a transparent approach that includes the member name. The ³replies² 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 <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 Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:42 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

4 4

FOR DISCUSSION: Draft recommendations & options
by Mary Wong May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Dear all, For the upcoming Working Group call that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday 10 May at 1600 UTC, please find attached a short document which contains suggested draft text for those recommendations that the Working Group has in general agreed on (e.g. standing to file a UDRP and URS complaint) as well as the text of the six policy options under discussion in respect of the outstanding issue concerning IGO jurisdictional immunity. Susan, Phil and Petter (in their respective capacities as Council liaison and Working Group co-chairs) believe that the time we have allocated for our Thursday call will be best spent in determining if the language of the draft recommendations is accurate, and whether the group will be able to reach consensus on the remaining issue. As such, all Working Group members are encouraged to attend the call tomorrow if you can. For completeness, we are also attaching two other documents: 1. We have updated the numbers on the Summary Report that had been circulated previously to this Working Group, and that was discussed on our last call. We wish to clarify that the one numerical inconsistency was due to our having to account for an email submission that came in after Susan’s office hours, but this does not affect or change the numbers reported as to which option was preferred and by how many. 2. A draft final report – prepared following Heather’s and Susan’s request that the group provide a report to the GNSO Council in time for the Council’s next meeting in May 2018. Please note that, should the Working Group agree to submit a report to the Council, we have the option to submit this draft report as a placeholder on 14 May (the document deadline for the Council meeting) but that does not mean it cannot be further edited prior to Council action if the Working Group believes substantive (rather than, say, typographical or grammatical errors which will need to be fixed in any case) changes are needed. However, as noted, the focus of the call tomorrow will be on finalizing language for agreed recommendations as well as attempting to determine consensus on the six policy options, rather than on editing the draft report. Staff will also post these documents to the Working Group wiki space before the meeting for your easy reference. Thank you. Best regards Mary & Steve

1 0

Revision to Voting by PRK Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus
by Paul Keating May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

All (and Mary) I would like to modify my voting as to Option 6 to ³YES². My vote(for the purpose of the consensus conversation should thus be modified to the following: ---------------------------------- Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: YES As to the modification, when voting initially, I had not considered that this WG would only be making the suggestion that mediation programs be adopted BUT that the actual drafting of any language required to implement would be conducted by subsequent working groups, (i.e. that referenced in #4). As I have said during previous calls and in previous emails, I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program. I ENCOURAGE Brian and anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program. Thus, I favor a recommendation by this WG that such a process be undertaken. And, if the subsequent WG do not adopted language for inclusion within the UDRP or URS, no ADR would be precluded from initiating such a program on a voluntary basis. Paul Keating On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Paul Keating" <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >All (and Mary), > >I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am >growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing >documentation that has been issued. > >To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows: > > >---------------------------------- > >Name: PAUL KEATING >Option 1: Yes >Option 2: NO >Option 3: NO >Option 4: YES >Option 5: NO >Option 6: NO > >Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT >I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG). > >Thank you, > >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 > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------- > > >On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" ><gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > >>Hi folks, >> >>Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be >>posted: >> >>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html >> >>let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already >>have a consensus. >> >>The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at: >> >>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html >> >>Briefly: >> >>Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in >>the same position >> >>Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for >>newly created domains >> >>Option 3: arbitration >> >>Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP >> >>Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not >>just "in personam") >> >>Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be >> >>If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and >>transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following >>template >> >>---------------------------------- >> >>Name: >>Option 1: >>Option 2: >>Option 3: >>Option 4: >>Option 5: >>Option 6: >> >>---------------------------------- >> >>For myself: >> >>Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice) >> >>Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise >> >>Option 3: no, I can't support this >> >>Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of >>having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is >> >>Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other >>options >> >>Option 6: yes, I support mediation >> >>Sincerely, >> >>George Kirikos >>416-588-0269 >>http://www.leap.com/ >>_______________________________________________ >>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

LET's GET BACK TO WORK - Part 2 Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus
by Paul Keating May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

PHIL, Just a short refrain to your comments: 1. 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. RESPONSE. This is not correct. On April 26th Susan stated in an email (copied below in full at the end of my email): "I understand from last week’s call that members of the group are willing and keen to work together to reach a final document, and I fully support that happening." "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.” "Our recommendation can be boiled down to suggesting that the WG develop its final output for presentation to the GNSO Council; if consensus cannot be reached on any particular points, the various options raised should be identified, as these are an important record of the ideas proposed but not agreed upon. Recording this information indeed was our intention in conducting the WG member consultation process." If she had meant that the WG was under the control of the liaison or Council she would have said so. She did not. She said “working group" 2. 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. RESPONSE. This is not correct. I participated in the appeal process and the related calls. The resulting agreement was to have the liaison attempt to determine if there was consensus and if so what that was. The issue of polls was discussed as a post-liaison process on the condition that it would be transparent - as opposed to your original non-transparent plan that lead to the appeal. 3. Mr. Kirikos has no authority under the GNSO WG Guidelines to conduct such a poll and its results have no official status. RESPONSE. I find this a counter-productive statement that ignores the goal of actually achieving consensus and working towards the preparation of the final report. Whether it is “official” or not, it helps guide the conversation forward. It is a transparent broadcast of the views of those who responded. I even supplemented my responses with my reasoning as to each option. 3. 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. RESPONSE. First, I do not see how they are incompatible. Nothing in Option 4 precludes the final report from expressing the WG views as to immunity. Second, Option 4 refers the underlying need for Policy/Rules alteration to the appropriate WG for consideration as to any changes that may or may not be required to the UDRP or URS policies or underlying rules. 4. 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. RESPONSE. It would appear that Susan is recommending that the WG continue to work towards identifying a consensus AND that the WG work towards producing a “final report” by May 14th. She even offers her assistance to work with a drafting team. And, in the case consensus is not easily identified she provides reference to another WG team and its approach (listing the various options and indicating the level of support for each). However, I see nothing in her recommendations that would support abandoning efforts to identify consensus. Susan also stated in her April 26th email: "I remain very willing to support and assist the WG in developing a final report, and I understand from last week’s call that other members of the WG are likewise willing. I suggest therefore that we form a small drafting team with a view to developing a final report by 14 May, in time for submission and consideration by the Council during the 24 May GNSO Council meeting." +++++++++++++++++++++ Here is the entirety of Susan’s April 26th email for anyone doubting the quotations above: Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp%40icann.org?Subject=Re:%20Re%3A%20%5BGnso-igo-ing o-crp%5D%20Message%20from%20Susan%20Kawaguchi%20%28GNSO%20Council%0A%20liai son%20to%20the%20IGO-INGO%20Curative%20Rights%20PDP%20Working%20Group%29&In -Reply-To=%3CB2B97E1F-F7E0-47D0-AACE-FC8B6B9ADFB4%40icann.org%3E> Thu Apr 26 15:13:17 UTC 2018 * Previous message: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo - SUPPORT FOR #4. <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001137.html> * Next message: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from the Liaison (was Re: GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)) <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html> * Messages sorted by: [ date ] <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/date.html#1138 > [ thread ] ><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/thread.html#1 >138> [ subject ] ><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/subject.html# >1138> [ author ] ><https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/author.html#1 >138> ________________________________________ Dear Working Group members, Please see the email message below, which staff is sending on behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, the GNSO Council liaison to our PDP Working Group. Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group members, I write in my role as GNSO Council liaison to this Working Group (WG) to follow up on the WG meeting held last week and to clarify misunderstandings that may have arisen from that call. The intention in providing a report of the WG member consultation process was to develop a record of the views expressed in that process. Ultimately, a PDP WG is required to report its findings to the GNSO Council. The member consultation process was intended to provide a workable pathway to reaching this point, and the record of those views intended to inform the WG’s final report to the GNSO Council. I understand from last week’s call that members of the group are willing and keen to work together to reach a final document, and I fully support that happening. While the member consultation process was initiated to address a Section 3.7 appeal under the GNSO WG Guidelines in which concerns were raised about the appropriate means of designating WG consensus, the recommendations made by me and the GNSO Chair go beyond the Section 3.7 appeal, because the input received during the consultation process raised other issues going beyond the scope of the appeal. Many of these other issues dovetailed with the GNSO Council’s current initiative to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of PDPs (a process we call “PDP 3.0”). One of the priorities raised by the Council in its Strategic Planning Session in January 2018 and by PDP leaders and the community in a workshop held at ICANN61 was for Council to take a more active role in supporting and managing PDP timelines. In its Strategic Planning Session, the GNSO Council identified completion of this PDP’s work by mid-year to be a top priority based on the broader GNSO PDP workload and each PDP’s timeline and milestones. Ultimately, Heather’s and my recommendation that the WG wind up its work takes that input from the GNSO Council into account. Our recommendation can be boiled down to suggesting that the WG develop its final output for presentation to the GNSO Council; if consensus cannot be reached on any particular points, the various options raised should be identified, as these are an important record of the ideas proposed but not agreed upon. Recording this information indeed was our intention in conducting the WG member consultation process. To clarify, the intention of the WG member consultation process was never to guarantee or influence a particular substantive outcome, or even to guarantee that consensus would be reached on any/all points under discussion; it was merely to provide an alternative approach by which members could voice their views on the points under discussion and capture these for inclusion in the record and to gain an understanding of each WG member’s point of view. 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. To that end, we suggested that if the group cannot achieve consensus on any particular points, then the model of the Cross-Country Working Group for the Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs (CWG-UCTN) Final Report would be instructive (that group’s final report contains three recommendations on which consensus was reached, and a fourth recommendation presented in option form with support recorded for each option). I remain very willing to support and assist the WG in developing a final report, and I understand from last week’s call that other members of the WG are likewise willing. I suggest therefore that we form a small drafting team with a view to developing a final report by 14 May, in time for submission and consideration by the Council during the 24 May GNSO Council meeting. Kind regards, Susan (GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG) Thank you, 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 On 5/8/18, 9:09 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> 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 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On >Behalf Of Bikoff, James >Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:23 PM >To: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-. ><gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible >Consensus > >No on others. > > > >James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law > >202-263-4341 Phone >202-263-4329 Fax >www.sgrlaw.com >jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com > >1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. >Suite 400 >Washington, D.C. 20007 > >Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP > >-----Original Message----- >From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:20 PM >To: Bikoff, James; gnso-igo-ingo-. >Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus > >Thanks for posting, James. > >Just for completeness, do you have a position (for/against) the other >5 options? I plan to make a table at some point, to summarize things, and >don't want to have empty spaces. It could be yes/no/maybe/unsure, etc. > >Sincerely, > >George > >On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com> wrote: >> I am also in favor of option 4. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law >> >> 202-263-4341 Phone >> 202-263-4329 Fax >> www.sgrlaw.com >> jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com >> >> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. >> Suite 400 >> Washington, D.C. 20007 >> >> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] >> On Behalf Of David W. Maher >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:57 PM >> To: gnso-igo-ingo-. >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus >> >> >> CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or >>attachments unless it's from a verified sender. >> ________________________________ >> >> My preferences are as follows: >> Option 1: Yes >> Option 2: No >> Option 3: No >> Option 4: Yes >> Option 5: No >> Option 6: No >> >> In general, I agree with Paul Keating's reasoning, with the minor >>exception that I would prefer Option 4 over Option 1 because Option 4 >>gives the IGOs an opportunity to have their voice heard. >> David Maher >> >> David W. Maher >> Public Interest Registry >> Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy >> +1 312 375 4849 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Paul Keating >> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:18 AM >> To: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es>; George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>; >> gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus >> Importance: High >> >> Having been asked by several people for my reasoning behind my votes, I >>thought I would simply post it openly. >> >> Option 1: Yes. >> >> This is a simple solution that returns the process to a balance. It >>leaves the IGO with the complete freedom of choice (just as it had in >>filing the UDRP). The consequence (voiding the UDRP) is a simple and >>easily understood consequence of seeking the benefit of immunity AND >>does not bog us down in discussions as to whether immunity existed or >>whether it had already been waived by the IGO via the UDRP filing. >> >> Option 2: NO. >> >> Although a nice attempt to seek compromise, I found it too confusing >>and feared it would lead to us becoming bogged down in discussion over >>details. >> >> Option 3: NO. >> >> I am most opposed to the idea of this WG attempting to create any form >>of alternative dispute system. This is more appropriately addressed by >>a wider and more fully functioning WG such as that addressing the RPM. >> >> Option 4: YES. >> >> I am fully in favor of suggesting that the other WG handle this matter. >> They are a larger group with more professionals on board. They are >>also experienced in tackling complex issues. I know this because I am a >>member of both this and the RPM WG. >> >> Option 5: NO. >> >> Issues of ³in rem² and declaratory relief are inherently common law >>principles and are not shared by many jurisdictions, including those >>based upon civil law (that which looks only to statutes and not to prior >>judicial decisions as the reference point). This would require too much >>discussion by this WG to achieve true consensus as to what is or is not >>involved in turning this option into the more robust descriptions >>necessary. Also, I have had no difficulty in dealing with post-UDRP >>claims based upon this distinction (suing a party or suing a thing). I >>also am unsure if a US in rem action would be permitted to continue in >>the absence of an IGO that successfully asserted sovereign immunity. >>So, overall, too complex for this WG given its directive. >> >> Option 6: NO. >> >> I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my >>thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program. I ENCOURAGE Brian and >>anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program. >> Initiating such a program would not require any modification to to the >>UDRP as it could be entirely voluntary. HOWEVER, to the extent that >>this Option 6 would require discussion and consensus surrounding the >>rules underlying an obligatory mediation program, such is beyond the >>scope of this WG and not likely to have a successful outcome, >>particularly given what has been transpiring in this WG to date. >> >> So, there you have my thoughts. >> >> I ENCOURAGE all WG members to respond to George¹s email regardless of >>your views. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" >> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >> >>>All (and Mary), >>> >>>I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am >>>growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing >>>documentation that has been issued. >>> >>>To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows: >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------- >>> >>>Name: PAUL KEATING >>>Option 1: Yes >>>Option 2: NO >>>Option 3: NO >>>Option 4: YES >>>Option 5: NO >>>Option 6: NO >>> >>>Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) >>>BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG). >>> >>>Thank you, >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>---------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" >>><gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi folks, >>>> >>>>Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be >>>>posted: >>>> >>>>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html >>>> >>>>let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already >>>>have a consensus. >>>> >>>>The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at: >>>> >>>>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.ht >>>>m >>>>l >>>> >>>>Briefly: >>>> >>>>Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in >>>>the same position >>>> >>>>Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for >>>>newly created domains >>>> >>>>Option 3: arbitration >>>> >>>>Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP >>>> >>>>Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not >>>>just "in personam") >>>> >>>>Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be >>>> >>>>If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and >>>>transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following >>>>template >>>> >>>>---------------------------------- >>>> >>>>Name: >>>>Option 1: >>>>Option 2: >>>>Option 3: >>>>Option 4: >>>>Option 5: >>>>Option 6: >>>> >>>>---------------------------------- >>>> >>>>For myself: >>>> >>>>Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice) >>>> >>>>Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise >>>> >>>>Option 3: no, I can't support this >>>> >>>>Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of >>>>having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is >>>> >>>>Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other >>>>options >>>> >>>>Option 6: yes, I support mediation >>>> >>>>Sincerely, >>>> >>>>George Kirikos >>>>416-588-0269 >>>>http://www.leap.com/ >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> >> ________________________________ >> Confidentiality Notice >> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended >>exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This >>communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or >>confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not >>the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy >>or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this >>message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and >>delete all copies of the message. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >________________________________ >Confidentiality Notice >This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended >exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This >communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or >confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not >the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy >or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this >message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and >delete all copies of the message. >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >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

Something Magical Is Happening (was Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus)
by George Kirikos May 8, 2018

May 8, 2018

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(a)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

2 2

Why hasn't Susan and ICANN staff posted the corrected input counts yet?
by George Kirikos May 7, 2018

May 7, 2018

Hi folks, Seventeen days ago, on the April 19th call, I pointed out that the input was miscounted (among other things), and Susan specifically stated that: "We will check on a number of people that provided input and correct that in the report." [bottom of page 17 of the transcript at: https://community.icann.org/x/wAEFBQ https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84214208/transcript%20IGO%… ] Why has this not been done yet? This is only a count of 9 vs 10 people, and shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and certainly not more than 2 weeks (and counting). This was also but one of the issues I raised in the previous email to the mailing list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html in the attached PDF, and hasn't been addressed. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1