Hello, On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
This co-chair categorically reject your reckless charge that I have engaged in "fear-mongering".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering "Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue.[1][2][3] This can take the form of psychological manipulation that uses fear-based tactics (scare tactics) including exaggeration and usually repetition to influence the public in order to achieve a desired outcome.[citation needed] It is a tactic used to scare or put fear into those viewing a campaign/advertisement and influence the outcome based on fear." You've repeatedly used the "Thelma and Louise" metaphor, http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000872.html driving off a cliff, that the entire report would get rejected if Option C wasn't selected. These aren't "new facts" or "new analysis" being used to push Option C. They're fear and politics, plain and simple. The "art of the possible", as though this is a negotiation, rather a truth-seeking exercise. I'm not the only one that recognizes this -- see the messages by Paul Keating and Mike Rodenbaugh yesterday: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000905.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000906.html
Please stick to the substance ands stop making reckless and unfounded allegations about others' motivations.
When I have in the past, you've said that: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000877.html "I am not going to even begin to attempt a point-by-point response to your extremely long message." My message you refer to: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000876.html is 1,908 words, according to Wordcounter.net. According to Medium.com, the average adult reads at 275 Words Per Minute: https://help.medium.com/hc/en-us/articles/214991667-Read-time so apparently a 7 minute long article is "extremely long". Of course, many of us have above average in reading skill, given our higher education, etc. Lawyers (I'm not one) should have especially high reading skills. I contrast those 7 minutes with PDP conference calls that go for 90 minutes week after week after week for 3 years. A claim that those 7 minutes of reading time would make it an "extremely long message" doesn't seem correct to me. But, let me try to make it easy......just respond to these specific questions: 1. The October 12, 2017 "Options Document" (edited to remove that "error" above) is at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WEBINAR+2017-10-12+IGO-INGO... The very first paragraph claims that: " Other options that were discussed previously by the Working Group have not been included in this proposal based on the co-chairs’ assessment either that their essential elements have been adapted and incorporated into Options A, B, and/or C (below), or that they were based on an incomplete reading of the applicable rules (i.e. the previous Option 5)." Where is Option 6 adapted and incorporated into Option C? Here's a reminder of what Option 6 was: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html I assert that the options document mislead the working group by falsely stating that Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into the Option C. Yes or no? If Option 6 was adapted and incorporated into Option C, show us where it is in that document. [while I acknowledge I've been invited to resubmit Option 6 again to this PDP, I want you to acknowledge that the edited October 12, 2017 document makes that false claim above, and thus mislead the working group] 2. There is a long preface (the entire first page of that October 12th document, and the first paragraph of the 2nd page) criticizing Options A and B. Show me just a single statement that is negative towards Option C in that document that was prepared as "co-chairs" (not as individual members with a viewpoint). If you can't identify a single negative statement towards Option C, how is that not a biased document, and a misuse of the positions as co-chairs? I think those are enough, for now. I wouldn't want to make this email "too long" (under 700 words, so that's less than 3 minutes reading time for an average adult). The answers should be illuminating to this group. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/