Hi folks, On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
· The Options document was developed by members of the working group over multiple WG calls and there was no strong dissent to its content, much less a charge that it was a “a one-sided summary document prepared by proponents of Option C that directly attacks Options A and B, and doesn't show the advantages or disadvantages of all options neutrally”.
That's not correct. See the post and PDF from September 26, 2017: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000847.html The PDF repeatedly uses the phrase "the Co-Chairs" in many of the paragraphs of the PDF, attacking Options A and B. I dissented to the content at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html The document was later updated at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000852.html still stating the "co-chairs" positions on various topics. I dissented to that document too: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000853.html as did Paul Tattersfield: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000855.html The document was amended one more time: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000857.html once again, always referencing only the "co-chairs" views, who are proponents of Option C. How can one honestly portray that as a document that was neutral? Then the "background documents" linked to with the survey: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000869.html contains that same document, dated October 12, 2017: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO... https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO... once again putting forth the "co-chairs" views front and center.
· The Options document is a summary of the contents and effect of the Options, not a brief for or against any of them. I completely reject your allegation that it attacks Options A and B; rather, it simply and accurately states what they are.
That's not a credible statement. Did you actually read the document that you wrote? It's a direct attack against options A and B in the "preliminary notes" section of the document, and then later presents all three options. Are you now disavowing what you wrote?
· Notwithstanding the now allegedly biased nature of the Options document, you had no problem immediately completing the survey and sharing your vigorous advocacy for Options A and B on the same day the survey began. (Likewise, in response I shared my personal view, based in large part upon three years of service on GNSO Council, as well as participation in the Board/GAC/GNSO discussions on IGO issues, that those Options had little or no chance of being approved by Council and were inconsistent with the bedrock principles that have guided our work.)
Yes, I believe all responses should be public and transparent, especially given this is an ongoing debate, and minds should still be open to be changed. Unlike your "personal views" that are reflected in the Options document itself, those of others who actually prefer other options are not in the options document. Furthermore, the "secret survey" that is being kept confidential is still being shared with the co-chairs, presumably (since it's being used to inform their future statements at the next ICANN meeting). The Co-chairs are supposed to have only an *administrative* role, e.g. arranging meeting times, and other grunt work of that nature. By getting preferential access to the survey results, available to no other PDP members, the co-chairs are then permitted to do their own advocacy to those members without a level playing field. The co-chairs should have no "information advantage" compared with other members due to their purely administrative role.
· I note that Imran’s email states “Option C is well elaborated and reader can understand that what is being asked by him. May I ask to update the questions for ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ with some additional detail?” While I don’t believe that Option A requires the same amount of detail as Option C, Imran now has the benefit of your further explanation below, in addition to your advocacy statement of Monday, and can make a decision accordingly.
That assumes Imran (and/or others) hadn't already filled out the survey by the time I posted, or that no other member of the PDP who already submitted the survey had an opportunity to read all the arguments, instead of the one-sided positions put forth by the co-chairs.
As for WG members who have been unable to participate in calls due to schedule conflicts, we cannot postpone our final work indefinitely until their calendars clear. And every member has full access to the email list, mp3 recordings, and meeting transcripts to keep up with the discussion and inform themselves.
Perhaps a fresh Doodle poll should be conducted, to attempt to accommodate those (like Paul Keating) who've had persistent conflicts with the current Thursday time slot. That time slot was created ages ago, and might not accurately reflect availability of those who still need to understand all the arguments and ask questions in real-time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/