Hi folks, Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html "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." "We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email. As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20, 2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was posted: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
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 Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp