Hi folks, (1) For those concerned about the length of this PDP, I'd like to point out that it was proposed (by me) that we had fulfilled our mandate as of December 2014 (that's not a typo), see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000220.html when the *existing* workaround (assignee, licensee, agent) was documented. What have we really accomplished since that date, other than fill in the details related to that primary finding? (2) Much energy recently has been spent dealing with the "quirk of process" regarding availability of court access to registrants who want judicial review on the merits of the dispute. Anything we do in that regard *must* be within the scope of our charter. If you've not read the Appeal PDF that I posted 2 days ago: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-January/001035.html take a look at point 19 which starts near the bottom of page 11 (you can skip the rest, if you'd like). It takes less than 1 minute to read that point (it's less than a page long). If that point is correct, then all of that quirk of process discussion for registrants is *not* even within the scope of our Charter, and is properly directed to the RPM PDP (which can deal with the impact on *registrants* in the same manner as the Yoyo.email UK Cause of Action issue, which has essentially the same root cause, the role reversal of plaintiff/defendants). I repeat, the work of this PDP ***as it relates to IGOs*** was completed in 2014! Do we have a consensus on this? If so, wrap things up. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG
Agreed and we also have
A draft report with basic avoidable errors An expert’s report that isn’t even relevant to the WG’s charter A (nearly?) final report that incorrectly applies the expert’s findings
And a proposed recommendation for an arbitration mechanism which will probably never be used as it is limited to cases that require a quirk of process as the result of a combination of a bad judge, an incompetent lawyer and no appeal.
And to get that proposed recommendation into the report?
We’re waiting a week for a written rebuttal/approval of oral testimony which hasn’t been heard yet, so some who is supposed to be informed can workout how to defend a position in the absence of guidance from above once the oral reasoning is delivered.
You couldn't make it up.
Best regards,
Paul.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi David,
Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I support the use of an anonymous poll.
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu...
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
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 George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp