Petter:

The true history is very different from what you wrote. First, it's not a "vote". It's an attempt at consensus, via a public and transparent display of where folks stand on the various options. I simply wanted the process as per the ICANN Working Group Guidelines to be followed, which wasn't happening back in October through December of 2017. It's all been said before in the Section 3.7 appeal documents, that are on the wiki, and on this mailing list.

To suggest I had plans to move the decision-making to GNSO Council is not credible. Cite something or anything that shows that I had "plans" of that nature. I simply wanted to prevent you and Phil from violating the working group guidelines. If you look at what I asked for in the Appeal (which is on page 1 of it), it was:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-January/001035.html

"B. REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. The specific remedies sought are:
(a) Proposed use of second anonymous poll by Co-Chairs shall be disallowed, as it is inconsistent with the WGG;
(b) Past use of first anonymous poll by Co-Chairs shall be declared null and void, as it was inconsistent with the WGG; and
(c) The GNSO shall appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair as allowed for under Section 6.1.3 of the WGG. In the alternative, that the GNSO use a professional facilitator to help ensure neutrality and promote consensus as allowed for under Section 6.1.3."

Nothing close to what you said.

Furthermore, Section 3.7 says nothing about stopping working group meetings. That was your choice, not mine. Further, there were no calls scheduled last week, or the week before. Again, not my choice.

Now that we know where the level of support is (as some of us haven't given up trying to get the job done), we should wrap things up accordingly, with a final report that reflects the actual views of members, that have been transparently provided.

Sincerely,

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

 

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
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@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@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:


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:


2. Lots of other things were wrong with that Summary Report, which were ignored:


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:


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



On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@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 mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp