PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
I just want to go on the record that I disagree with this proposed procedure. I outlined some of those reasons previously: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html The ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour document states that members should: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en "Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants." An anonymous poll does not reflect any attempts by those responding to it to "work to build consensus". It's an abdication of one's responsibilities. Furthermore, that document states that members "Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy development and decision-making processes." An anonymous poll is diametrically opposed to that transparency, and accountability. I mentioned previously I'm reading the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, and one of the topics he talks about is transparency in decision-making: "1.3 Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up. Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by creating an atmosphere in which everyone's first thought is to ask: "Is it true?" (a) Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and "fight for right" but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What you're not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately -- either to others or in your own head. If you can't fulfill this obligation, then you must go." (page 329) Those who oppose a certain option should be open about it, and explain their reasoning openly. They should "speak up, own it, or get out." They should also keep an open mind so that they listen to other viewpoints, and potentially have their own positions changed through a two-way dialog. Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a path forward which is designed to cement divisions, rather than reconciling them. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
George: The co-chairs have carefully reviewed the GNSO WG Guidelines, have consulted with ICANN policy staff, and are confident that the outlined procedure is fully consistent with the Guidelines and our responsibilities. As described in our message, the poll is being taken to assist the co-chairs in proposing consensus levels for the options relating to recommendation 3. Once we publish our proposed classifications it will be subject to open, non-anonymous discussion and potential modification by the full WG before the Final report is locked down and transmitted to Council. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:40 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus I just want to go on the record that I disagree with this proposed procedure. I outlined some of those reasons previously: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html The ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour document states that members should: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en "Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants." An anonymous poll does not reflect any attempts by those responding to it to "work to build consensus". It's an abdication of one's responsibilities. Furthermore, that document states that members "Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy development and decision-making processes." An anonymous poll is diametrically opposed to that transparency, and accountability. I mentioned previously I'm reading the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, and one of the topics he talks about is transparency in decision-making: "1.3 Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up. Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by creating an atmosphere in which everyone's first thought is to ask: "Is it true?" (a) Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and "fight for right" but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What you're not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately -- either to others or in your own head. If you can't fulfill this obligation, then you must go." (page 329) Those who oppose a certain option should be open about it, and explain their reasoning openly. They should "speak up, own it, or get out." They should also keep an open mind so that they listen to other viewpoints, and potentially have their own positions changed through a two-way dialog. Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a path forward which is designed to cement divisions, rather than reconciling them. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs' evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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
How is it that the only "poll" is with regards to Recommendation #3, yet you are somehow able to determine a level of consensus without any poll on Recommendation #4, when multiple folks have spoken out against ICANN providing subsidies for IGOs in their URS/UDRP complaints? What magical process will you use to determine preliminary level of consensus for the other recommendations that you refuse to also apply to Rec #3? Also, how do you explain that we've reached a process that ICANN's guidelines describe as "rare"? I don't see a good reason for invoking a procedure that the guidelines discourage. If the use of the poll is "reasonable", then provide us with the reasoning. The statement in Mary's email that "further discussion is unlikely to....sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail" implies that the "poll" is going to be used as a final VOTE, which the guidelines explicitly warn about. The guidelines are pretty clear that even if a poll is "reasonable", it should happen "after several iterations" (of the prior steps described on page 9). Yet, none of those steps have even happened yet! The guidelines even say: "However, in all other cases.....their name must be explicitly linked, ****especially in those cases where polls where (sic) taken.****" (emphasis added) which is NOT consistent with anonymous polls. Furthermore, multiple "members" of this PDP don't even have any SOI posted, despite that being the "price" of membership --- how is it those members are going to now be allowed to anonymously participate in a poll, despite not being allowed to even be members in the first place? https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895 Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
The co-chairs have carefully reviewed the GNSO WG Guidelines, have consulted with ICANN policy staff, and are confident that the outlined procedure is fully consistent with the Guidelines and our responsibilities.
As described in our message, the poll is being taken to assist the co-chairs in proposing consensus levels for the options relating to recommendation 3. Once we publish our proposed classifications it will be subject to open, non-anonymous discussion and potential modification by the full WG before the Final report is locked down and transmitted to Council.
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
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:40 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
I just want to go on the record that I disagree with this proposed procedure. I outlined some of those reasons previously:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html
The ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour document states that members should:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
"Work to build consensus with other stakeholders in order to find solutions to the issues that fall within the areas of ICANN's responsibility. The ICANN model is based on a bottom-up, consensus driven approach to policy development. Those who take part in the ICANN process must take responsibility for ensuring the success of the model by trying to build consensus with other participants."
An anonymous poll does not reflect any attempts by those responding to it to "work to build consensus". It's an abdication of one's responsibilities.
Furthermore, that document states that members
"Facilitate transparency and openness when participating in policy development and decision-making processes."
An anonymous poll is diametrically opposed to that transparency, and accountability.
I mentioned previously I'm reading the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio, and one of the topics he talks about is transparency in decision-making:
"1.3 Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up.
Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by creating an atmosphere in which everyone's first thought is to ask: "Is it true?"
(a) Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea meritocracy, openness is a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and "fight for right" but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What you're not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately -- either to others or in your own head. If you can't fulfill this obligation, then you must go." (page 329)
Those who oppose a certain option should be open about it, and explain their reasoning openly. They should "speak up, own it, or get out." They should also keep an open mind so that they listen to other viewpoints, and potentially have their own positions changed through a two-way dialog.
Instead, the co-chairs are proposing a path forward which is designed to cement divisions, rather than reconciling them.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs' evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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
Mary, I respectfully disagree with this approach as I believe it hinders our attempts to find the correct solution. Please can either of the co-chairs provide a simple written reply confirming that they accept the reasoning below * or in the alternative that they disagree with it, please can they provide a reasoned explanation as to why it should be refuted? Thanks, Paul ** Why the IGOs are never entitled to an immunity defence* Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court: (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter. As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases. (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an action. Most of the reasoning in the Swaine report applies to (a) and is therefore not relevant to the working group's report as we are not considering (a) the case where a TM holder initiates UDRP proceedings against an IGO. For example from the working group’s draft report (page 17): *There is no single universal rule that is applicable to IGOs’ jurisdictional immunity globally. Rather, such immunity is essentially contextual - IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently:*Including this is clearly incorrect as this reasoning can not be applied to (b) and the report does not consider (a) On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
- If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. *Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed*.
- On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. *The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018*. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
- Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the *first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018* in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. *We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline*, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Paul: Speaking in a personal capacity, I have long viewed Option A for Recommendation 3 as embodying the view that an IGO should never be entitled to raise an immunity defense, as it would have the prior UDRP decision vitiated if an IGO raised such judicial defense and succeeded in it. However, whether this WG (or members thereof) believes an IGO should be able to raise such a defense would in no way prevent an IGO from doing so if a domain registrant sought de novo judicial review, nor could we prevent a national court from affirming such a defense and terminating the judicial action. That is why Recommendation 3 has focused upon what should happen in terms of a policy response in such a scenario. Again, I believe that Option A already expresses your viewpoint. Best, 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: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Mary, I respectfully disagree with this approach as I believe it hinders our attempts to find the correct solution. Please can either of the co-chairs provide a simple written reply confirming that they accept the reasoning below * or in the alternative that they disagree with it, please can they provide a reasoned explanation as to why it should be refuted? Thanks, Paul * Why the IGOs are never entitled to an immunity defence Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court: (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter. As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases. (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an action. Most of the reasoning in the Swaine report applies to (a) and is therefore not relevant to the working group's report as we are not considering (a) the case where a TM holder initiates UDRP proceedings against an IGO. For example from the working group’s draft report (page 17): There is no single universal rule that is applicable to IGOs’ jurisdictional immunity globally. Rather, such immunity is essentially contextual - IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently: Including this is clearly incorrect as this reasoning can not be applied to (b) and the report does not consider (a) On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Phil, While our WG recommendation can never control the independent acts of an IGO, we can nevertheless State with conviction that we do not believe the UDRP as currently embodied poses an issue relative to IGO assertions of immunity in post-UDRP proceedings. Include in our report a recommendation that the UDRP decision is vitiated should the IGO prevail in a post-UDRP immunity claim. Include other suggestions that would limit post UDRP litigation. What we should not do is suggest yet another rights protection mechanism for IGOs when there has been no evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertions and inuendo) that a problem actually exists. Sent from my iPad
On 18 Dec 2017, at 19:55, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
Paul:
Speaking in a personal capacity, I have long viewed Option A for Recommendation 3 as embodying the view that an IGO should never be entitled to raise an immunity defense, as it would have the prior UDRP decision vitiated if an IGO raised such judicial defense and succeeded in it.
However, whether this WG (or members thereof) believes an IGO should be able to raise such a defense would in no way prevent an IGO from doing so if a domain registrant sought de novo judicial review, nor could we prevent a national court from affirming such a defense and terminating the judicial action. That is why Recommendation 3 has focused upon what should happen in terms of a policy response in such a scenario. Again, I believe that Option A already expresses your viewpoint.
Best, 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: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
Mary, I respectfully disagree with this approach as I believe it hinders our attempts to find the correct solution.
Please can either of the co-chairs provide a simple written reply confirming that they accept the reasoning below * or in the alternative that they disagree with it, please can they provide a reasoned explanation as to why it should be refuted?
Thanks,
Paul
* Why the IGOs are never entitled to an immunity defence
Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court:
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered
In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter.
As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases.
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP
The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an action.
Most of the reasoning in the Swaine report applies to (a) and is therefore not relevant to the working group's report as we are not considering (a) the case where a TM holder initiates UDRP proceedings against an IGO.
For example from the working group’s draft report (page 17):
There is no single universal rule that is applicable to IGOs’ jurisdictional immunity globally. Rather, such immunity is essentially contextual - IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently:
Including this is clearly incorrect as this reasoning can not be applied to (b) and the report does not consider (a)
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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
Paul: Speaking personally, I am puzzled by your reference to “another rights protection mechanism for IGOs”. I know of no such proposal being contemplated. Option C for Recommendation 3, which is the only UDRP policy modification that has been contemplated, would assure that a domain registrant gets a hearing on the basis of national law, albeit in an arbitration forum, if the IGO succeeds in its judicial immunity claim. I have viewed that as a new protection for registrants, not IGOs, as in that scenario under current UDRP policy the stay on the UDRP decision would be lifted and the domain would be transferred or extinguished. Best, 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: Paul Keating [mailto:paul@law.es] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:18 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Phil, While our WG recommendation can never control the independent acts of an IGO, we can nevertheless State with conviction that we do not believe the UDRP as currently embodied poses an issue relative to IGO assertions of immunity in post-UDRP proceedings. Include in our report a recommendation that the UDRP decision is vitiated should the IGO prevail in a post-UDRP immunity claim. Include other suggestions that would limit post UDRP litigation. What we should not do is suggest yet another rights protection mechanism for IGOs when there has been no evidence (as opposed to unsupported assertions and inuendo) that a problem actually exists. Sent from my iPad On 18 Dec 2017, at 19:55, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: Paul: Speaking in a personal capacity, I have long viewed Option A for Recommendation 3 as embodying the view that an IGO should never be entitled to raise an immunity defense, as it would have the prior UDRP decision vitiated if an IGO raised such judicial defense and succeeded in it. However, whether this WG (or members thereof) believes an IGO should be able to raise such a defense would in no way prevent an IGO from doing so if a domain registrant sought de novo judicial review, nor could we prevent a national court from affirming such a defense and terminating the judicial action. That is why Recommendation 3 has focused upon what should happen in terms of a policy response in such a scenario. Again, I believe that Option A already expresses your viewpoint. Best, 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: Monday, December 18, 2017 12:41 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Mary, I respectfully disagree with this approach as I believe it hinders our attempts to find the correct solution. Please can either of the co-chairs provide a simple written reply confirming that they accept the reasoning below * or in the alternative that they disagree with it, please can they provide a reasoned explanation as to why it should be refuted? Thanks, Paul * Why the IGOs are never entitled to an immunity defence Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court: (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter. As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases. (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an action. Most of the reasoning in the Swaine report applies to (a) and is therefore not relevant to the working group's report as we are not considering (a) the case where a TM holder initiates UDRP proceedings against an IGO. For example from the working group’s draft report (page 17): There is no single universal rule that is applicable to IGOs’ jurisdictional immunity globally. Rather, such immunity is essentially contextual - IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently: Including this is clearly incorrect as this reasoning can not be applied to (b) and the report does not consider (a) On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi folks, On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
I have viewed that as a new protection for registrants, not IGOs, as in that scenario under current UDRP policy the stay on the UDRP decision would be lifted and the domain would be transferred or extinguished.
Where in our charter does it empower this PDP to develop "new protections for registrants"? That statement above is further demonstration that the quirks of process we've identified should be properly referred to the RPM PDP (i.e. Zak's proposal), to take care of the underlying causes of the quirks of process that impact registrants, instead of attempting to create an unwanted and elaborate arbitration process as a way to "fix" the underlying problems for registrants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
With respect Phil, your reply does not even begin to answer the question I asked. The question I asked has nothing to do with option A, B or C. If I am right substantial sections of the working group report will have to be rewritten. Therefore please can you answer the question I posed? Many thanks, Paul On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Speaking in a personal capacity, I have long viewed Option A for Recommendation 3 as embodying the view that an IGO should never be entitled to raise an immunity defense, as it would have the prior UDRP decision vitiated if an IGO raised such judicial defense and succeeded in it.
However, whether this WG (or members thereof) believes an IGO should be able to raise such a defense would in no way prevent an IGO from doing so if a domain registrant sought de novo judicial review, nor could we prevent a national court from affirming such a defense and terminating the judicial action. That is why Recommendation 3 has focused upon what should happen in terms of a policy response in such a scenario. Again, I believe that Option A already expresses your viewpoint.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/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:* Monday, December 18, 2017 12:41 PM *To:* Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
Mary, I respectfully disagree with this approach as I believe it hinders our attempts to find the correct solution.
Please can either of the co-chairs provide a simple written reply confirming that they accept the reasoning below * or in the alternative that they disagree with it, please can they provide a reasoned explanation as to why it should be refuted?
Thanks,
Paul
* * Why the IGOs are never entitled to an immunity defence*
Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court:
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered
In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter.
As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases.
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP
The working group has not looked at (a) which hides the fact that in (b) the IGO is never entitled to immunity under any circumstances after initiating an action.
Most of the reasoning in the Swaine report applies to (a) and is therefore not relevant to the working group's report as we are not considering (a) the case where a TM holder initiates UDRP proceedings against an IGO.
For example from the working group’s draft report (page 17):
*There is no single universal rule that is applicable to IGOs’ jurisdictional immunity globally. Rather, such immunity is essentially contextual - IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently: *Including this is clearly incorrect as this reasoning can not be applied to (b) and the report does not consider (a)
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
- If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. *Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed*.
- On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. *The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018*. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
- Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the *first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018* in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. *We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline*, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear Mary and Co-chairs, Many thanks for providing the below summary of the process moving forward. Further to the below email, it is unclear to me where exactly the Consensus call is taking place. It appears that there is an anonymous poll to be conducted, followed by a determination of consensus level by the chairs, followed by a discussion on the chairs’ designation, but I am unable to identify at what stage therein if any, the Consensus call itself is deemed to be taking place. In the below email, it states that the, “final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines”. So does that mean there will at some point be a Consensus call made “on the designated mailing list”, as per the Guidelines? Zak *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong *Sent:* December-18-17 11:46 AM *To:* gnso-igo-ingo-. *Subject:* [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus *Importance:* High The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: - If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. *Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed*. - On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. *The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018*. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. - Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the *first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018* in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. *We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline*, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
Zak: We shall follow this process set forth in section 3.6 of the Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf ). The process will commence in early January after the co-chairs publish our evaluation of the designation for the various options: The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows: i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review. ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation. iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. … Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the consensus process. It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the process set forth below to challenge the designation. If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially: 1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error. 2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison support of the Chair’s determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants’ position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair. 3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the CO. Best, 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 Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:38 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Dear Mary and Co-chairs, Many thanks for providing the below summary of the process moving forward. Further to the below email, it is unclear to me where exactly the Consensus call is taking place. It appears that there is an anonymous poll to be conducted, followed by a determination of consensus level by the chairs, followed by a discussion on the chairs’ designation, but I am unable to identify at what stage therein if any, the Consensus call itself is deemed to be taking place. In the below email, it states that the, “final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines”. So does that mean there will at some point be a Consensus call made “on the designated mailing list”, as per the Guidelines? Zak From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: December-18-17 11:46 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Importance: High The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
While you claim to be following that procedure, you're actually NOT following the procedure you quoted. "(i) After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review" However, in today's email from Mary, the co-chairs wrote: "It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail." In other words, all the discussion has already been completed, or "reached an end point" in your own words. Thus, the co-chairs should make the evaluation of the designation *immediately*. A "poll" is not a continuation of "discussion". According to the co-chairs' statement, the discussion has been completed. If there's going to be a poll (a 'rare' case), that comes **after*** the "iterative" process, which hasn't even been attempted. If the co-chairs are refusing to "make an evaluation of the designation", they should step down, and there should then be an election of a new chair or co-chairs to "make an evaluation of the designation." Based on the discussions that took place in the last few calls, and on the email list, I think there's already a consensus for Zak's proposal, namely to refer the "quirks of process" to the RPM PDP. I only witnessed, based on the discussions, minor opposition to it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
Zak:
We shall follow this process set forth in section 3.6 of the Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf ). The process will commence in early January after the co-chairs publish our evaluation of the designation for the various options:
The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows:
i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation.
iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. …
Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the consensus process. It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the process set forth below to challenge the designation.
If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially:
1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison support of the Chair’s determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants’ position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair.
3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the CO.
Best, 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 Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:38 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
Dear Mary and Co-chairs,
Many thanks for providing the below summary of the process moving forward. Further to the below email, it is unclear to me where exactly the Consensus call is taking place. It appears that there is an anonymous poll to be conducted, followed by a determination of consensus level by the chairs, followed by a discussion on the chairs’ designation, but I am unable to identify at what stage therein if any, the Consensus call itself is deemed to be taking place.
In the below email, it states that the, “final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines”. So does that mean there will at some point be a Consensus call made “on the designated mailing list”, as per the Guidelines?
Zak
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: December-18-17 11:46 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Importance: High
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
In order to support any appeal, if need be, I actually went back to the transcripts, which demonstrate how the poll will actually be used. On October 29, 2017, at the Abu Dhabi meeting, Phil Corwin said: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-gdd-ssr2-29oct17-... "We did a consensus – a preliminary consensus call within the working group on this final question, the question being – and this has never occurred, and may never occur, but we had to deal with the question....." So, that first anonymous poll was actually being openly characterized and treated by Phil as a "preliminary consensus call". [It's clear that's how the 2nd poll would actually be used.] Next, in the transcript of the November 30, 2017 call: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-30nov17-en... Mary Wong said "In which case, and I’ll end with this, then given the three remaining meetings, if we can get that done and launch a formal consensus call on all the recommendations before the break at the end of the year...... So we’re looking at three more meetings, possibly opening a consensus call before Christmas, closing it out around the 10th of January...." (page 27) which is consistent with the idea that the anonymous poll is being used as a "consensus call", one launching just before Christmas. Then Phil Corwin followed up with: "So we’re aiming to basically wrap up discussion by the week of - the week before Christmas and put out a consensus call and give working group members two weeks to respond to that." (page 28) Oh, and how long is the poll? Two week!. So, despite Phil's recent statements, the prior statements show the truth, that the 2-week poll beginning before Christmas is being treated as "the consensus call". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 6:05 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
While you claim to be following that procedure, you're actually NOT following the procedure you quoted.
"(i) After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review"
However, in today's email from Mary, the co-chairs wrote:
"It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail."
In other words, all the discussion has already been completed, or "reached an end point" in your own words. Thus, the co-chairs should make the evaluation of the designation *immediately*.
A "poll" is not a continuation of "discussion". According to the co-chairs' statement, the discussion has been completed.
If there's going to be a poll (a 'rare' case), that comes **after*** the "iterative" process, which hasn't even been attempted.
If the co-chairs are refusing to "make an evaluation of the designation", they should step down, and there should then be an election of a new chair or co-chairs to "make an evaluation of the designation."
Based on the discussions that took place in the last few calls, and on the email list, I think there's already a consensus for Zak's proposal, namely to refer the "quirks of process" to the RPM PDP. I only witnessed, based on the discussions, minor opposition to it.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
Zak:
We shall follow this process set forth in section 3.6 of the Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf ). The process will commence in early January after the co-chairs publish our evaluation of the designation for the various options:
The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on recommendations should work as follows:
i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation.
iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an evaluation that is accepted by the group. …
Consensus calls should always involve the entire Working Group and, for this reason, should take place on the designated mailing list to ensure that all Working Group members have the opportunity to fully participate in the consensus process. It is the role of the Chair to designate which level of consensus is reached and announce this designation to the Working Group. Member(s) of the Working Group should be able to challenge the designation of the Chair as part of the Working Group discussion. However, if disagreement persists, members of the WG may use the process set forth below to challenge the designation.
If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially:
1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is believed to be in error.
2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison support of the Chair’s determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the complainants’ position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair.
3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a statement from the CO.
Best, 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 Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 2:38 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
Dear Mary and Co-chairs,
Many thanks for providing the below summary of the process moving forward. Further to the below email, it is unclear to me where exactly the Consensus call is taking place. It appears that there is an anonymous poll to be conducted, followed by a determination of consensus level by the chairs, followed by a discussion on the chairs’ designation, but I am unable to identify at what stage therein if any, the Consensus call itself is deemed to be taking place.
In the below email, it states that the, “final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines”. So does that mean there will at some point be a Consensus call made “on the designated mailing list”, as per the Guidelines?
Zak
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: December-18-17 11:46 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus Importance: High
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (6)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Zak Muscovitch