Hi folks, 1. I disagree with the analysis and characterization of the situation made by the co-chairs. I'll save the full details and reasoning of that for later, in the proper venue, but the transcripts (both the chat transcript and the oral transcript) make it clear I would not accept a poll on its own, without the facilitated process first. The poll (related to section 3.6) makes no sense until *after* a facilitator attempted to reach a consensus (prior to doing section 3.6), but failed. At that point, after failure to reach a consensus, a poll could then capture the final levels of consensus/divergence, etc., for the final report. The entire compromise I suggested of using an independent and neutral facilitator (as opposed to appointing a new chair to replace the current ones) was made in order to eliminate the ability for the current co-chairs to manipulate the process any further (which was explicitly argued in section 18 of the section 3.7 appeal document dated January 11, 2018, seeking the remedy of appointing an independent and neutral co-chair). If that failed, further protections would be put in place to ensure that if a poll was used later (i.e. to document levels of consensus, should the facilitated process fail), it would not be a poll prepared unilaterally by the co-chairs -- the poll would need to be constructed by the entire working group, to ensure, once again, that the polling questions/framing weren't open to manipulation. 2. Even if you take at face value the co-chairs' claims (which I dispute) that there was "only an agreement to vet the concept of a facilitated session with the full WG", then that's entirely inconsistent with the document that was sent to the mailing list 2 days ago: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001079.html Instead of simply vetting that concept, which was paragraph 2 of that PDF, the co-chairs went way beyond that, attempting to reassert their own proposals (that I rejected) from two weeks ago, i.e. paragraph 3 and related paragraphs that change the timing of the poll, and how it would be used. Why they would act "extremely disappointed" puzzles me --- what were they expecting, given that they had to have known it would be unacceptable to me? Today's email even calls it a "compromise offer", as if they're still negotiating, rather than simply vetting what they claimed was agreed to on January 18th. 3. The co-chairs now even attempt to change how the section 3.7 appeal should be handled, and which documents should be shared with the GNSO Council Chair. It was agreed on January 11, 2018 exactly which documents would be allowed. We agreed that the co-chairs were allowed a reply to my January 11, 2018 PDF (which they delivered on January 16, 2018), and it was also agreed then by everyone that I would be allowed a further response to that January 16th PDF (which I will exercise my right to deliver at some future date to the GNSO Chair, now that the appeal will have to be reactivated, apparently; the date for such response was not specified, but it was not to be before January 18th, i.e. the date of the last meeting to discuss the section 3.7 appeal). All these other new documents are attempts by the co-chairs to get more bites at the apple than they were ever entitled to or that was agreed to, and attempts to re-argue the meaning of their new so-called "compromises". 4. I'll advise the GNSO Council Chair that the section 3.7 appeal is no longer suspended. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:

The co-chairs are extremely disappointed by Mr. Kirikos’ rejection of what we believe is a very reasonable compromise proposal regarding a path forward for this WG. That proposal withdraws the request that the poll sought by the co-chairs to assist them in performing their Guideline duties be anonymous, and accepts consideration of his proposal (subject to WG support) for a facilitated session in which maximum participation of WG members will be encouraged.

A review of the transcript of the January 18th call held between the co-chairs shows that there was no agreement on every element of a path forward, only an agreement to vet the concept of a facilitated session with the full WG. As noted from page 32 of the transcript, Mr. Kirikos - at least at the time of the second call - seemed to accept such way to move forward[1]. Notwithstanding Mr. Kirikos’ decision to reject our compromise offer and continue his section 3.7 appeal, the co-chairs continue to encourage feedback from other members on our proposal and thank those who have already responded.

ICANN 61 is just five weeks away, and the co-chairs are concerned that further substantial delay in resolving the 3.7 appeal will make it logistically impossible to secure the assistance of a community facilitator for the WG’s session there if there is overall WG support for that approach. We will therefore request that staff provide the GNSO Council Chair with a copy of our compromise proposal, copies of Mr. Kirikos’ email responses on the WG list, a copy of this further response from the co-chairs, and copies of feedback on our proposal from other WG members -- along with a request from the co-chairs that the Council Chair or her designated representative decide his appeal as expeditiously as possible. Those materials will make clear that the issue of an anonymous poll is no longer in dispute, and that the appeal is now confined to an objection to the co-chairs’ exercise of their discretion to utilize a public and transparent poll of WG members to assist us in proposing consensus levels and initiate the consensus call process recommended in section 3.6 of the Guidelines, as well as address any potential allegations of WG “capture”.

We thank WG members for their continued patience and feedback, and hope we can resume WG activities and complete our work as soon as possible and thereby conclude final recommendations on the topics of our WG.

Regards,

Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth

[1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that”

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

________________________________

[1] ICANN Transcription Call to discuss George Kirikos appeal under section 3.7 of the GNSO WG guidelines / Thursday, 18 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC / Page 32: (George Kirikos): “…And I actually proposed earlier in the chat room that, you know, we can put this proposed solution to the working group members to see how they feel and I concur with that”

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp