Dear Ms. Forrest, Thank you, and happy holidays. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 1:27 AM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Kirikos,

I confirm receipt of your email and acknowledge your invocation of the section 3.7 procedure.

Council leadership met with staff and the PDP co-chairs just prior to the end of the week to ensure you received a reply prior to the end of year shutdown. Some minor delay in setting up a discussion time is inevitable given that between the members of Council leadership and the co-chairs and relevant staff we cover nearly every time zone on the globe, but I believe we were successful in getting an email to you before Saturday in your time zone.

Section 3.7 requires in first instance a meeting between the party raising the matter and the PDP chair/s. If other PDP members supporting the invocation of section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, my reading of the relevant section suggests that is entirely appropriate.

Per section 3.7, after that meeting has taken place, if you would like to proceed to the next step meeting, that will be arranged.

The availability of PDP co-chairs and ICANN staff is limited this week by end of year holidays (and, in my case in the southern hemisphere, also summer holiday closures) but I assure you we will arrange the first instance meeting for you and other interested members as soon as possible. I will take the opportunity in the interim to carefully review the records at the links you have provided.

Kind regards,

Heather Forrest

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 8:10 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

It has been 2 days since my email of Tuesday, and the co-chairs have not contacted me to discuss my appeal of their decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll, one that is inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements. Both co-chairs attended yesterday's RPM PDP call, and time could have been set aside to talk either before or after that call. Or, time could have been set aside to talk today, during our regular IGO PDP meeting timeslot that was cancelled. I was available continuously (except for sleep!).

I also asked multiple times (all on the record, on the public mailing list) for the identity and contact details of the relevant "chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative" for a formal appeal, and was not provided with those details Since Heather Forrest is the current chair of the GNSO, I'm cc'ing her on this email (although, perhaps she can refer it to her "designated representative", if she's not the appropriate person).

I'll note that I am not alone in my concerns. Seven PDP members (including myself) share those concerns, as noted in the public mailing list archive:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/date.html

which is a highly significant portion of the actively engaged members of this PDP.

I ask that Ms. Forrest intervene at this time to ensure that the long-established ICANN transparency requirements are followed going forward.

[For background reading, and for Ms. Forrest's benefit, the above mailing list archive discusses the relevant issues, e.g. in my posts:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000982.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000989.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000993.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000998.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001000.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001002.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001005.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001007.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001008.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001013.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001016.html

although it might be easier to simply read all posts sequentially (they're relatively short, starting from the chronological archive (very first link above) with a subject of "Consensus Process concerns -- settling on designations" and working forward, to get all statements).]

I'm sending this email now as it's just after 10:00 am New Zealand time on Friday, and the co-chairs have proposed that their survey will go out on Friday (in North America), perhaps hoping to avoid the appeal by "running out the clock" arguing that "the holidays intervened" (which would be a problem of their own creation).

Yesterday, Mary Wong of ICANN staff claimed that:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001015.html

"For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will respond to the mailing list shortly."

but this has not happened.

I regret that it has come to this, as I've bent over backwards to attempt to resolve this issue that has many in this PDP concerned.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Dear Mary,

According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":

https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf

who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.

Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all,

As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).

The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.

In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).

Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.

Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,

Mary

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: 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.

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