Formal Appeal of IGO PDP actions of Chair, Liaison, and Staff (was Re: Intention to File another Section 3.7 appeal (was Re: Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC))
Hi folks, As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one. On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call", https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html with examples of 2 other PDPs. Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example: i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text. ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all. iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours": https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html with no summary report until a month later. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html (attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner. That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work. On April 26, 2018, Susan stated: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html "It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council." But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... "This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4) and " Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no. Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes." But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document. Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us. Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place. "That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added) Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened. ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.). In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track). [There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting] Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report. I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!] Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Less than 1 hour left (it's just after 3:00 pm now in Toronto). Does anyone think I bluff? (especially after already filing a DIDP request this morning) Given I've not heard anything to change my mind yet, if Petter, Susan and Heather have time *today* (right after 4 pm Toronto time), that might move things along expeditiously, after the 3.7 is invoked, to immediately have the required calls, etc.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Not good enough, Mary. Not even close to being good enough.
Had I been in your position (your = Mary, Steve, Petter), the *first* thing I would have done was immediately acknowledge to the group that there were obvious errors in the document, and it would have been accompanied by an apology. Then, I would have immediately taken ownership of the issue, and told people to hold off on reading it, and would have *recounted* all the support levels, and then double- and triple-checked them to get it right. I would have worked through the night to get it done, in order to make sure that others wouldn't have to redo the work, and would have time to review things.
We have your response that I'm replying to, and we also have Petter's:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001247.html
which fail to come close to being an acceptable response. It is trivial to verify that Mike Rodenbaugh's input wasn't reflected in the report. Trivial to verify that David Maher's input was similarly ignored. And so on.
There's a pattern here. The last time there were blatantly obvious mistakes in reports, did you guys fix them in a timely manner? Go read the post at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
where I kept calling out this issue, wrong counts of the inputs. I'm forced to write these long "rebuttal" documents constantly pointing out things like "Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from the Liaison":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
and even then, there's no sense of urgency from the ones making mistakes to take ownership and correct things in a timely manner. And even when they are later "fixed", they're slipped in with no explanation, and I have little confidence that the updated numbers are actually correct.
I think it's clear that this PDP would have gone into oblivion, with no consensus on Rec #5, until I took it upon myself to get folks to start posting transparently on the mailing list what their views were. See the thread "Public Display of Possible Consensus":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html
which I started because you guys created a non-transparent procedure (one not supported by the working group guidelines), and even then the numbers were *obviously* wrong, because they didn't add up (i.e. the 10 minute private calls with Susan + staff at the last ICANN meeting, supplemented by private emails). See the post that started it off at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html
The results of that open and transparent process (in line with working group guidelines) were very different with what Susan + staff prepared. The email at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
painted a pretty picture showing that we were coalescing around consensus (around an option that the co-chairs and staff didn't like!). Rather than recognizing that, as I put it poetically, that "something magical was happening"
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001155.html
Contrast that with what Susan + ICANN staff prepared (with *all* their time and resources) on April 13:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
(basically a *month* after the ICANN meeting) It really contains just half a page of poorly aggregated summary. Compare that with:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
which didn't leave out anything, and laid things all on the table. And the Google docs was produced in a much more timely manner. And I'm not on ICANN salary, either.
This demonstrable progress in achieving consensus was looked at with disdain. It wouldn't even get posted to the WebEx or Wiki by ICANN staff at that call. Phil Corwin resigned as co-chair shortly thereafter.
Then, we wasted several weeks doing it all over again! As Mike Rodenbaugh said:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
"How many times do we have to say the same thing? My position has not changed since the last time I was asked, or the time before that."
One definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We did do it all over again, regardless, and the results were essentially the same (with a few new contributors)
Now we're left with an artificially imposed and compressed time-frame to do 3 or 4 weeks' worth of work in a week (and it's really less than a week, because we know the last 2 days of that deadline are a Saturday and Sunday, and we know that our "Thursday" call was moved to "Tuesday", so presumably people have time conflicts on Thursday should we need to meet again or respond quickly to edits, feedback, etc. And even then, there should be time given for minority reports. So really we should be done by Thursday, to give people time do do minority reports by Sunday (that's really not fair to them, giving them just 3 days, 2 of which are weekend days, to finish their own work, but that's how the math is looking). And yet, it's now Sunday, and we don't even *have* the latest draft report to work on!
I know I'm being forceful and assertive here, and am some might perceive that I'm not a "team player" by pointing all these issues out. But, I'm trying to raise the standards and get the job done correctly, achieving a final document that we can all be proud of. I've been the one helping to achieve a consensus, working with others. Instead, we risk producing a half-baked final report that the IGOs/GAC criticize unfairly, and that doesn't pass through the ICANN Board.
Who'd be the beneficiary of that "bad" outcome where our report doesn't get accepted? Those who oppose the apparent consensus (Option #1). And that happens to be the current chair, the past co-chair, and ICANN staff themselves (ICANN staff repeatedly voiced opposition to Option #1, even though they're not members of this PDP -- they're here for clerical support).
Phil Corwin openly points to that risk:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html
"This option, regardless of support level or subsequent action by the GNSO Council, is highly unlikely to ever be adopted by the ICANN Board given the near-certainty of strong adverse advice from the GAC."
I believe we have a strong justification for Option #1, and have very thorough and sound analysis to justify our positions. It's a recommendation that is backed by a diverse set of stakeholders participating in this PDP. It's all on the mailing list archives and on the past phone calls, but *hasn't* been put into the Final Report yet. It's incumbent upon us to put it into the Final Report, so that it's all properly captured, in anticipation of counter-arguments that will be used to try to undermine it. The IGOs/GAC will not be pointing out all the arguments on the mailing list. They're going to point to the Final Report alone. And the Board is only going to rely upon that Final Report to see if the IGOs arguments are incorrect (there's certainly not going to be any future "rebuttal" opportunity to to respond to anything the IGOs say).
In conclusion, I want to see this work behind us as much (if not more) as everyone else. But, I do want to make sure that the Final Report is of high quality, and I don't see that happening in the next week (especially given Mary and Petter's most recent responses).
But, feel free to convince me I'm wrong on this. Give me some new information or insight I'm missing. Or, acknowledge the hard truth that we should take the 3 or 4 weeks to get this done by the July GNSO Council meeting. (and that's with *continuation* of weekly calls, and active participation on the mailing list, to get the edits done; i.e. don't just add 3 or 4 weeks, and then take a leisurely pause and do nothing for several weeks, setting up another last-minute rush job in the first week of July; i.e. we should be working through things during the ICANN meeting, and setting up calls now, and having rapid turns on new/update language, so we can cross the finish line and not procrastinate).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
I am sorry to hear that you find the staff work to be sloppy, shoddy and imprecise, and that you believe we have been nonchalant in how we have approached our duties with respect to this PDP. I hope you will permit me, as the senior staff member supporting this group, to say that I believe we have tried to discharge our duties as professionally and competently as possible in the circumstances. As I mentioned in my last email to the Working Group, Steve and I will be working with Petter and Susan to ensure that concerns, agreements and disagreements are captured and discussed appropriately, and the draft Final Report updated in accordance with GNSO rules and practice.
Best regards, Mary
On 6/10/18, 12:32, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
[For those I've cc'd on this email, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/date.html
and
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html ("initial designations document" is attachment is at very end of the page) ]
I am incredulous at Mary and Steve's nonchalant response to the email thread, seemingly ignoring the fact that the document that was sent to the mailing list today was replete with errors. I had thought that this was a product solely of Petter's creation, but it looks like there's blame to go around --- the metadata of the document that was sent to the list shows the "author" was "Mary Wong". So, it appears that the document had received multiple views by them, and even after this email thread, it seems it's "business as usual" at their end, as if nothing is wrong. Truly stunning.
Besides the problems that were **already** pointed out, there's the fact that:
1. Mike Rodenbaugh's input was completely ignored! How hard is it to read:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
and then go back to:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001167.html
2. David Maher's input was completely ignored! His was the very first response at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html
and his name is *nowhere* in the document!
3, Zak and Nat are listed as *supporters* of Option #3 (i.e. the arbitration), when they were against:
Zak: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html
"I understand *Option 3* and appreciate the objective and rationale behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form.
Nat: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html
"I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments-
*Option #3* - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration."
It's very odd to count that as "support" for Option #3 -- that's not how I read it at all, given Nat (and Zak) supported Option #1.
4. there could be even more errors (i.e. folks should double-check what was listed in that document)
Does anyone truly believe that, in a week (remember, the "deadline" is supposedly June 17) we can (a) fix all the errors in the designations (b) have time for objections (i.e. the iterative process in section 3.6 of the working group guidelines), (c) review a draft final report (there were long sections missing), (d) submit comments/amend that draft final report, (e) agree to all the relevant changes for the final report, (f) leave time for those who want to make minority statements (which they can't really do until the final report is close to finalization).
The most recent draft final report was from May 9:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
and there's really very little good text discussing recommendation #5 (i.e. capturing the full debate that took place, pros/cons, etc., so that a reader of the report could actually understand them). Go look at page 44 to 48 -- is that it? It's mostly spent just listing the options, and then a whole bunch of process stuff, but nothing that would lead a reader to understand why this was debated for over a year. There's obviously other sections that need to be fixed too.
Remember, there's only *1* call scheduled (this Tuesday), and then no other calls are scheduled.
Normally, there's a 2 week clock that *begins* when a close-to-final draft final report is circulated, *along* with the specification of the "initial designation levels" (which Petter only provided a few hours ago) -- see the examples of past PDPs I mentioned at the top of my earlier email:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
If we had a 2 week clock that started when we actually receive a new draft, then that might be reasonable. Then, maybe another week to finalize edits. But, this would be with the draft document being actively updated, and folks actively submitting comments. I don't see how that would happen, given that folks are now also getting ready for the upcoming ICANN meeting.
I asked repeatedly that we keep up our weekly calls, so we could drive the work forward, but it didn't happen. Go look at the wiki -- we had a call April 19, May 10, May 25, and that was it! Huge gaps of wasted time, where we should have been doing what we're now asked to do in a single week.
Anyhow, if folks believe we can finish everything in a week, that normally takes three or four weeks, convince me. I'm willing to put in the work do so, but I can't do it all. That means people actively reading the reports, agreeing *swifly* to edits (obviously takes much longer if there is debate about the changes)
Otherwise, I think it's best we aim for the July GNSO Council meeting (July 19th, documents due July 9th) for finalization of our work. This would still require weekly calls, to get things edited properly.
I'm going to bed, but I'll wait and see if anyone can convince me by 4 pm Toronto time on Sunday (different time zones, so some of you might fix that document Petter circulated, we might see a draft final report to review, who knows). At that time, I'll decide whether to formalize this.
NB: If I do invoke a section 3.7 appeal, it's not intended to *stop* the coming call on Tuesday, or stop any of the work we're doing. It's only intended to prevent a half-baked unreviewed/unedited document to be sent to GNSO Council a week from now -- we'd still work on that, regardless of the outcome of the Section 3.7. I'll make myself readily available to Petter/Susan/Heather so they can decide things quickly.
My preference would be that Susan and Heather take a look at the shoddy work represented by that document we saw a few hours ago, replete with errors, and realize that folks really need to raise the standards of the output being produced. Imposing an artificial deadline isn't good for quality control.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...
P.S. Kudos to Reg for stepping up and offering to do her own summary of the feedback on Sunday morning (I intend to do the same, independently).
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. > > Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary & Steve > > On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rlevy@tucows.com> wrote: > > I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. > > Reg Levy > (310) 963-7135 > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only > > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was > > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > > > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." > > > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear > > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might > > want to weigh in again). > > > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others > > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort > > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. > > > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone > > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part > > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher > > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny > > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time > > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we > > want to do it right? > > > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- > > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's > > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus > > designation levels. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the > >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, > >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative > >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial > >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we > >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* > >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group > >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation > >> Levels. > >> > >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago > >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html > >> > >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can > >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough > >> support." > >> > >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html > >> > >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." > >> > >> I don't understand what's going on there. > >> > >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, > >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have > >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus > >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] > >> > >> When Reg wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > >> > >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. > >> > >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's > >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did > >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of > >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads... > >> > >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with > >> the newer responses at some point. > >> > >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is > >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not > >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. > >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually > >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the > >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might > >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most > >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). > >> > >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis > >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. > >> > >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone > >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have > >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we > >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be > >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another > >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work > >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> George Kirikos > >> 416-588-0269 > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth > >> <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote: > >>> Dear All WG Members, > >>> > >>> Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call. > >>> > >>> I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached > >>> document, to discuss further on Tuesday. > >>> > >>> For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: > >>> > >>> Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation > >>> in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous > >>> Consensus. > >>> > >>> Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree. > >>> > >>> Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of > >>> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those > >>> who do not support it. > >>> > >>> Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't > >>> strong support for any particular position, but many different points of > >>> view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and > >>> sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or > >>> convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth > >>> listing the issue in the report nonetheless. > >>> > >>> Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support > >>> the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong > >>> support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases > >>> where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a > >>> small number of individuals > >>> > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> Petter > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Petter Rindforth, LL M > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Fenix Legal KB > >>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr > >>> 114 35 Stockholm > >>> Sweden > >>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > >>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > >>> E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu > >>> www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> > >>> NOTICE > >>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to > >>> whom it is addressed. > >>> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and > >>> attorney work product. > >>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are > >>> requested not to read, > >>> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. > >>> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > >>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> Thank you > >>> > >>> > >>> 5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon > >>> <andrea.glandon@icann.org>: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will > >>> take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > >>> > >>> 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 > >>> Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST > >>> > >>> For other times: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d=... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v... > >>> > >>> Web conference tool: Adobe Connect > >>> > >>> Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If > >>> you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&... [tinyurl.com] > >>> > >>> Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room > >>> are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if > >>> your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as > >>> attachment for you to download to your calendar. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working > >>> group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to > >>> gnso-secs@icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the > >>> Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers > >>> and participant passcode below. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Participant passcode: IGO > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dial in numbers: > >>> > >>> Country > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Toll Numbers > >>> > >>> Freephone/ > >>> Toll Free Number > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ARGENTINA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-777-0519 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> ADELAIDE: > >>> > >>> 61-8-8121-4842 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> BRISBANE: > >>> > >>> 61-7-3102-0944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> CANBERRA: > >>> > >>> 61-2-6100-1944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> MELBOURNE: > >>> > >>> 61-3-9010-7713 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> PERTH: > >>> > >>> 61-8-9467-5223 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> SYDNEY: > >>> > >>> 61-2-8205-8129 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 43-1-92-81-113 > >>> > >>> 0800-005-259 > >>> > >>> BELGIUM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 32-2-400-9861 > >>> > >>> 0800-3-8795 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> RIO DE JANEIRO: > >>> > >>> 55-21-40421490 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> SAO PAULO: > >>> > >>> 55-11-3958-0779 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> CHILE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1230-020-2863 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA A: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-712-1670 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA B: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-120-1670 > >>> > >>> COLOMBIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 01800-9-156474 > >>> > >>> CROATIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-08-06-309 > >>> > >>> CZECH REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 420-2-25-98-56-64 > >>> > >>> 800-700-177 > >>> > >>> DENMARK > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 45-7014-0284 > >>> > >>> 8088-8324 > >>> > >>> EGYPT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800000-9029 > >>> > >>> ESTONIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-011-1093 > >>> > >>> FINLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 358-9-5424-7162 > >>> > >>> 0-800-9-14610 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> LYON: > >>> > >>> 33-4-26-69-12-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> MARSEILLE: > >>> > >>> 33-4-86-06-00-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> PARIS: > >>> > >>> 33-1-70-70-60-72 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> GERMANY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 49-69-2222-20362 > >>> > >>> 0800-664-4247 > >>> > >>> GREECE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 30-80-1-100-0687 > >>> > >>> 00800-12-7312 > >>> > >>> HONG KONG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 852-3001-3863 > >>> > >>> 800-962-856 > >>> > >>> HUNGARY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 36-1-700-8856 > >>> > >>> 06-800-12755 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA A: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-852-1268 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA B: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-001-6305 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA C: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1800-300-00491 > >>> > >>> INDONESIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-803-011-3982 > >>> > >>> IRELAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 353-1-246-7646 > >>> > >>> 1800-992-368 > >>> > >>> ISRAEL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-80-9216162 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> MILAN: > >>> > >>> 39-02-3600-6007 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> ROME: > >>> > >>> 39-06-8751-6018 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> TORINO: > >>> > >>> 39-011-510-0118 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> OSAKA: > >>> > >>> 81-6-7878-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> TOKYO: > >>> > >>> 81-3-6868-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> LATVIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-3185 > >>> > >>> LUXEMBOURG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 352-27-000-1364 > >>> > >>> 8002-9246 > >>> > >>> MALAYSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-800-81-3065 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> GUADALAJARA (JAL): > >>> > >>> 52-33-3208-7310 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MEXICO CITY: > >>> > >>> 52-55-5062-9110 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MONTERREY: > >>> > >>> 52-81-2482-0610 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> NETHERLANDS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 31-20-718-8588 > >>> > >>> 0800-023-4378 > >>> > >>> NEW ZEALAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 64-9-970-4771 > >>> > >>> 0800-447-722 > >>> > >>> NORWAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 47-21-590-062 > >>> > >>> 800-15157 > >>> > >>> PANAMA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 011-001-800-5072065 > >>> > >>> PERU > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-53713 > >>> > >>> PHILIPPINES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 63-2-858-3716 > >>> > >>> 1800-111-42453 > >>> > >>> POLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-1212572 > >>> > >>> PORTUGAL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 351-2-10054705 > >>> > >>> 8008-14052 > >>> > >>> ROMANIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 40-31-630-01-79 > >>> > >>> > >>> RUSSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8-10-8002-0144011 > >>> > >>> SAUDI ARABIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-8-110087 > >>> > >>> SINGAPORE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 65-6883-9230 > >>> > >>> 800-120-4663 > >>> > >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 421-2-322-422-25 > >>> > >>> 0800-002066 > >>> > >>> SOUTH AFRICA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-09-80414 > >>> > >>> SOUTH KOREA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 82-2-6744-1083 > >>> > >>> 00798-14800-7352 > >>> > >>> SPAIN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 34-91-414-25-33 > >>> > >>> 800-300-053 > >>> > >>> SWEDEN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 46-8-566-19-348 > >>> > >>> 0200-884-622 > >>> > >>> SWITZERLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 41-44-580-6398 > >>> > >>> 0800-120-032 > >>> > >>> TAIWAN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 886-2-2795-7379 > >>> > >>> 00801-137-797 > >>> > >>> THAILAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-800-1206-66056 > >>> > >>> TURKEY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-151-0516 > >>> > >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-35702370 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> BIRMINGHAM: > >>> > >>> 44-121-210-9025 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> GLASGOW: > >>> > >>> 44-141-202-3225 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LEEDS: > >>> > >>> 44-113-301-2125 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LONDON: > >>> > >>> 44-20-7108-6370 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> MANCHESTER: > >>> > >>> 44-161-601-1425 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> URUGUAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-413-598-3421 > >>> > >>> USA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-517-345-9004 > >>> > >>> 866-692-5726 > >>> > >>> VENEZUELA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-1-00-3702 > >>> > >>> VIETNAM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 120-11751 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi folks, I've not received any response to the Section 3.7 appeal I filed yesterday, https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001254.html but I'd like to add to it, to reinforce it. According to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.3 (30 January 2018) -- first document at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu... "The Chair, with support of ICANN Staff, if required, is expected to circulate the draft agenda to the WG ideally at least 24 hours in advance. At the start of a meeting, the Chair should review the agenda and any proposed changes to that agenda." (page 54) It is now less than 22 hours before the next scheduled meeting, and no agenda (nor any documents that are not replete with errors) has been circulated: FYI, here is what an "agenda" looks like: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000900.html (an example from the IGO PDP in the past --- had to go way back to find one that was "proper") https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003109.html (an example from the RPM PDP) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021320.html (an example from the GNSO Council) INTA put it well, when these Working Group Guidelines were being developed: http://forum.icann.org/lists/working-group-guidelines/pdfN3FHBo2u9y.pdf "the Committee applauds advance circulation of WG meeting agendas, but circulating the agendas 24 hours before meetings provides insufficient lead time for WG members to review the agendas in light of the other professional and personal obligations of WG members. " While the 24 hours wasn't increased, that demonstrates why it's important to give people time to prepare and to be able to respond thoughtfully, and why sending it in late hurts members. It seems to me that the Chair/Staff are again lackadaisical in taking all the time in the world for themselves, but not giving members commensurate time. That's fundamentally unfair, and reinforces the need to provide the necessary time required to complete our work. It would take a superhuman effort to complete our work in what is now 6 days, given we've still not received various draft documents, and there's still much to do to finish off a final report properly (3 or 4 weeks seems feasible, if and only if people continue to drive the work forward). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...
I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one.
On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call",
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html
even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
with examples of 2 other PDPs.
Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example:
i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text.
ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all.
iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html
with no summary report until a month later.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
(attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html
Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner.
That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work.
On April 26, 2018, Susan stated:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html
"It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council."
But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
"This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4)
and
" Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no.
Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes."
But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document.
Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html
It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us.
Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place.
"That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added)
Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened.
ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.).
In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track).
[There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting]
Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report.
I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!]
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Attached is timestamped proof that there's been no agenda on time, via the wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-06-12+IGO-INGO+Access+... (timestamp = 3:12 pm Toronto time, tomorrow's call is scheduled for 12:00 noon Toronto time, = less than 21 hours away) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:41 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I've not received any response to the Section 3.7 appeal I filed yesterday,
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001254.html
but I'd like to add to it, to reinforce it. According to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.3 (30 January 2018) -- first document at:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...
"The Chair, with support of ICANN Staff, if required, is expected to circulate the draft agenda to the WG ideally at least 24 hours in advance. At the start of a meeting, the Chair should review the agenda and any proposed changes to that agenda." (page 54)
It is now less than 22 hours before the next scheduled meeting, and no agenda (nor any documents that are not replete with errors) has been circulated:
FYI, here is what an "agenda" looks like:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000900.html (an example from the IGO PDP in the past --- had to go way back to find one that was "proper")
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003109.html (an example from the RPM PDP)
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021320.html (an example from the GNSO Council)
INTA put it well, when these Working Group Guidelines were being developed:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/working-group-guidelines/pdfN3FHBo2u9y.pdf
"the Committee applauds advance circulation of WG meeting agendas, but circulating the agendas 24 hours before meetings provides insufficient lead time for WG members to review the agendas in light of the other professional and personal obligations of WG members. "
While the 24 hours wasn't increased, that demonstrates why it's important to give people time to prepare and to be able to respond thoughtfully, and why sending it in late hurts members.
It seems to me that the Chair/Staff are again lackadaisical in taking all the time in the world for themselves, but not giving members commensurate time. That's fundamentally unfair, and reinforces the need to provide the necessary time required to complete our work. It would take a superhuman effort to complete our work in what is now 6 days, given we've still not received various draft documents, and there's still much to do to finish off a final report properly (3 or 4 weeks seems feasible, if and only if people continue to drive the work forward).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...
I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one.
On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call",
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html
even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
with examples of 2 other PDPs.
Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example:
i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text.
ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all.
iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html
with no summary report until a month later.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
(attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html
Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner.
That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work.
On April 26, 2018, Susan stated:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html
"It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council."
But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
"This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4)
and
" Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no.
Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes."
But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document.
Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html
It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us.
Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place.
"That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added)
Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened.
ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.).
In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track).
[There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting]
Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report.
I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!]
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi folks, Just wanted to provide an update on the Section 3.7 appeal. We (Petter, Mary and myself) just concluded a 1 hour callThe recording will likely appear on the Wiki shortly, but it was a productive and constructive call, in my view. Three topics were discussed: A] Deadline for completion of our work B] The nature/terminology of a "consensus call" C] Role of ICANN staff in a PDP working group Most of the time was spent on the practical issue of today, namely making sure we have adequate time to complete our work successfully. At this point, only the finalization of the Final Report remains, as we've reached agreement on the consensus designation levels and text of the recommendations (as of June 21st).
From my perspective, the issues/problems were:
- we didn't have a call last week (and none had yet been scheduled for this week) - still hadn't received a draft final report to review since June 21 - we have a GNSO Council resolution (passed last week) setting an expectation for a final report in time for their July meeting (which sets a deadline for documents one week for today, namely July 9th, 10 days before their July 19th meeting); although, there might be some 'wiggle room', as the wording of the resolution didn't specify any penalties for missing that deadline - we have a GAC communique from last week (hasn't been sent to our list) where IGOs are unhappy, which perhaps requires some adjustment to our background rationales, to make sure we've documented all our reasons fully - different levels of engagement of PDP participants, which might make it hard to finish a report 7 days from now - practical reality that July 4th is a US holiday, which affects members' ability to respond quickly to feedback, if they're on holidays, etc. - leaving time for minority reports (which presumably want to base it on a final report, before writing rebuttals) I had brainstormed 5 options to handle these issues: i. keep to the deadline, and have calls on Thursday and Sunday (so we can be done by Monday) ii. try to have a placeholder report ready for July 9th, with a finalized report several days later (giving us a chance to have another call early next week, rather than Sunday) iii. shift to an August deadline (gives us more than enough time to finish) iv. check how firm the July 19th GNSO council meeting date is; i.e. if they moved *their meeting* 1 week later, to July 26th, that would move the deadline for documents to July 16th, giving us enough time to finish; their prior meeting was June 27, so that means there would be only 3 weeks between that meeting and the scheduled July 19th meeting v. perhaps GNSO council would schedule an entirely separate "special meeting" between their normal July and August meetings just for this IGO PDP topic, thus giving us a couple of weeks to wrap things up (would be finished sooner than their August meeting) Without seeing the draft final report, it's difficult to make an assessment as to how many changes will be required between it and a final report (and depends on how contentious proposed changes are perceived). But, at this point we've focused on: a) seeing the draft final report coming out today b) scheduling a call for this Thursday to go over it, and any changes that might be required to the draft c) assessing at that point where we are The other 2 issues (nature of a "consensus call", and "role of ICANN staff") were more broader questions, which perhaps might be clarified through clearer working group guidelines. I think we arrived at the right place in terms of achieving consensus, but some of the process leading up to that point was ambiguous, which led to concerns. Same for the role of ICANN staff, sometimes perceived (fairly or unfairly) as not being 'neutral' (depending on one's perspective, of course). Those drafting updates to PDP working group guidelines should perhaps listen to the recording to see the precise concerns (or contact separately to discuss). In conclusion, I thank Mary and Petter for the positive spirit of the call, and hope that we can get out a final report that we can all be proud of in a timely manner. If the timing needs to be tweaked slightly, I hope GNSO Council will accommodate our needs (despite their resolution) to ensure that the best possible work comes out of our PDP. We're 95%+ done, but sometimes that final 5% can take time to get right. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...
I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one.
On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call",
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html
even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
with examples of 2 other PDPs.
Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example:
i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text.
ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all.
iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html
with no summary report until a month later.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
(attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html
Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner.
That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work.
On April 26, 2018, Susan stated:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html
"It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council."
But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
"This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4)
and
" Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no.
Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes."
But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document.
Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html
It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us.
Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place.
"That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added)
Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened.
ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.).
In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track).
[There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting]
Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report.
I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!]
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Less than 1 hour left (it's just after 3:00 pm now in Toronto). Does anyone think I bluff? (especially after already filing a DIDP request this morning) Given I've not heard anything to change my mind yet, if Petter, Susan and Heather have time *today* (right after 4 pm Toronto time), that might move things along expeditiously, after the 3.7 is invoked, to immediately have the required calls, etc.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Not good enough, Mary. Not even close to being good enough.
Had I been in your position (your = Mary, Steve, Petter), the *first* thing I would have done was immediately acknowledge to the group that there were obvious errors in the document, and it would have been accompanied by an apology. Then, I would have immediately taken ownership of the issue, and told people to hold off on reading it, and would have *recounted* all the support levels, and then double- and triple-checked them to get it right. I would have worked through the night to get it done, in order to make sure that others wouldn't have to redo the work, and would have time to review things.
We have your response that I'm replying to, and we also have Petter's:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001247.html
which fail to come close to being an acceptable response. It is trivial to verify that Mike Rodenbaugh's input wasn't reflected in the report. Trivial to verify that David Maher's input was similarly ignored. And so on.
There's a pattern here. The last time there were blatantly obvious mistakes in reports, did you guys fix them in a timely manner? Go read the post at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
where I kept calling out this issue, wrong counts of the inputs. I'm forced to write these long "rebuttal" documents constantly pointing out things like "Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from the Liaison":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
and even then, there's no sense of urgency from the ones making mistakes to take ownership and correct things in a timely manner. And even when they are later "fixed", they're slipped in with no explanation, and I have little confidence that the updated numbers are actually correct.
I think it's clear that this PDP would have gone into oblivion, with no consensus on Rec #5, until I took it upon myself to get folks to start posting transparently on the mailing list what their views were. See the thread "Public Display of Possible Consensus":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html
which I started because you guys created a non-transparent procedure (one not supported by the working group guidelines), and even then the numbers were *obviously* wrong, because they didn't add up (i.e. the 10 minute private calls with Susan + staff at the last ICANN meeting, supplemented by private emails). See the post that started it off at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html
The results of that open and transparent process (in line with working group guidelines) were very different with what Susan + staff prepared. The email at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
painted a pretty picture showing that we were coalescing around consensus (around an option that the co-chairs and staff didn't like!). Rather than recognizing that, as I put it poetically, that "something magical was happening"
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001155.html
Contrast that with what Susan + ICANN staff prepared (with *all* their time and resources) on April 13:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
(basically a *month* after the ICANN meeting) It really contains just half a page of poorly aggregated summary. Compare that with:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
which didn't leave out anything, and laid things all on the table. And the Google docs was produced in a much more timely manner. And I'm not on ICANN salary, either.
This demonstrable progress in achieving consensus was looked at with disdain. It wouldn't even get posted to the WebEx or Wiki by ICANN staff at that call. Phil Corwin resigned as co-chair shortly thereafter.
Then, we wasted several weeks doing it all over again! As Mike Rodenbaugh said:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
"How many times do we have to say the same thing? My position has not changed since the last time I was asked, or the time before that."
One definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We did do it all over again, regardless, and the results were essentially the same (with a few new contributors)
Now we're left with an artificially imposed and compressed time-frame to do 3 or 4 weeks' worth of work in a week (and it's really less than a week, because we know the last 2 days of that deadline are a Saturday and Sunday, and we know that our "Thursday" call was moved to "Tuesday", so presumably people have time conflicts on Thursday should we need to meet again or respond quickly to edits, feedback, etc. And even then, there should be time given for minority reports. So really we should be done by Thursday, to give people time do do minority reports by Sunday (that's really not fair to them, giving them just 3 days, 2 of which are weekend days, to finish their own work, but that's how the math is looking). And yet, it's now Sunday, and we don't even *have* the latest draft report to work on!
I know I'm being forceful and assertive here, and am some might perceive that I'm not a "team player" by pointing all these issues out. But, I'm trying to raise the standards and get the job done correctly, achieving a final document that we can all be proud of. I've been the one helping to achieve a consensus, working with others. Instead, we risk producing a half-baked final report that the IGOs/GAC criticize unfairly, and that doesn't pass through the ICANN Board.
Who'd be the beneficiary of that "bad" outcome where our report doesn't get accepted? Those who oppose the apparent consensus (Option #1). And that happens to be the current chair, the past co-chair, and ICANN staff themselves (ICANN staff repeatedly voiced opposition to Option #1, even though they're not members of this PDP -- they're here for clerical support).
Phil Corwin openly points to that risk:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html
"This option, regardless of support level or subsequent action by the GNSO Council, is highly unlikely to ever be adopted by the ICANN Board given the near-certainty of strong adverse advice from the GAC."
I believe we have a strong justification for Option #1, and have very thorough and sound analysis to justify our positions. It's a recommendation that is backed by a diverse set of stakeholders participating in this PDP. It's all on the mailing list archives and on the past phone calls, but *hasn't* been put into the Final Report yet. It's incumbent upon us to put it into the Final Report, so that it's all properly captured, in anticipation of counter-arguments that will be used to try to undermine it. The IGOs/GAC will not be pointing out all the arguments on the mailing list. They're going to point to the Final Report alone. And the Board is only going to rely upon that Final Report to see if the IGOs arguments are incorrect (there's certainly not going to be any future "rebuttal" opportunity to to respond to anything the IGOs say).
In conclusion, I want to see this work behind us as much (if not more) as everyone else. But, I do want to make sure that the Final Report is of high quality, and I don't see that happening in the next week (especially given Mary and Petter's most recent responses).
But, feel free to convince me I'm wrong on this. Give me some new information or insight I'm missing. Or, acknowledge the hard truth that we should take the 3 or 4 weeks to get this done by the July GNSO Council meeting. (and that's with *continuation* of weekly calls, and active participation on the mailing list, to get the edits done; i.e. don't just add 3 or 4 weeks, and then take a leisurely pause and do nothing for several weeks, setting up another last-minute rush job in the first week of July; i.e. we should be working through things during the ICANN meeting, and setting up calls now, and having rapid turns on new/update language, so we can cross the finish line and not procrastinate).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
I am sorry to hear that you find the staff work to be sloppy, shoddy and imprecise, and that you believe we have been nonchalant in how we have approached our duties with respect to this PDP. I hope you will permit me, as the senior staff member supporting this group, to say that I believe we have tried to discharge our duties as professionally and competently as possible in the circumstances. As I mentioned in my last email to the Working Group, Steve and I will be working with Petter and Susan to ensure that concerns, agreements and disagreements are captured and discussed appropriately, and the draft Final Report updated in accordance with GNSO rules and practice.
Best regards, Mary
On 6/10/18, 12:32, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
[For those I've cc'd on this email, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/date.html
and
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html ("initial designations document" is attachment is at very end of the page) ]
I am incredulous at Mary and Steve's nonchalant response to the email thread, seemingly ignoring the fact that the document that was sent to the mailing list today was replete with errors. I had thought that this was a product solely of Petter's creation, but it looks like there's blame to go around --- the metadata of the document that was sent to the list shows the "author" was "Mary Wong". So, it appears that the document had received multiple views by them, and even after this email thread, it seems it's "business as usual" at their end, as if nothing is wrong. Truly stunning.
Besides the problems that were **already** pointed out, there's the fact that:
1. Mike Rodenbaugh's input was completely ignored! How hard is it to read:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
and then go back to:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001167.html
2. David Maher's input was completely ignored! His was the very first response at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html
and his name is *nowhere* in the document!
3, Zak and Nat are listed as *supporters* of Option #3 (i.e. the arbitration), when they were against:
Zak: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html
"I understand *Option 3* and appreciate the objective and rationale behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form.
Nat: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html
"I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments-
*Option #3* - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration."
It's very odd to count that as "support" for Option #3 -- that's not how I read it at all, given Nat (and Zak) supported Option #1.
4. there could be even more errors (i.e. folks should double-check what was listed in that document)
Does anyone truly believe that, in a week (remember, the "deadline" is supposedly June 17) we can (a) fix all the errors in the designations (b) have time for objections (i.e. the iterative process in section 3.6 of the working group guidelines), (c) review a draft final report (there were long sections missing), (d) submit comments/amend that draft final report, (e) agree to all the relevant changes for the final report, (f) leave time for those who want to make minority statements (which they can't really do until the final report is close to finalization).
The most recent draft final report was from May 9:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
and there's really very little good text discussing recommendation #5 (i.e. capturing the full debate that took place, pros/cons, etc., so that a reader of the report could actually understand them). Go look at page 44 to 48 -- is that it? It's mostly spent just listing the options, and then a whole bunch of process stuff, but nothing that would lead a reader to understand why this was debated for over a year. There's obviously other sections that need to be fixed too.
Remember, there's only *1* call scheduled (this Tuesday), and then no other calls are scheduled.
Normally, there's a 2 week clock that *begins* when a close-to-final draft final report is circulated, *along* with the specification of the "initial designation levels" (which Petter only provided a few hours ago) -- see the examples of past PDPs I mentioned at the top of my earlier email:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
If we had a 2 week clock that started when we actually receive a new draft, then that might be reasonable. Then, maybe another week to finalize edits. But, this would be with the draft document being actively updated, and folks actively submitting comments. I don't see how that would happen, given that folks are now also getting ready for the upcoming ICANN meeting.
I asked repeatedly that we keep up our weekly calls, so we could drive the work forward, but it didn't happen. Go look at the wiki -- we had a call April 19, May 10, May 25, and that was it! Huge gaps of wasted time, where we should have been doing what we're now asked to do in a single week.
Anyhow, if folks believe we can finish everything in a week, that normally takes three or four weeks, convince me. I'm willing to put in the work do so, but I can't do it all. That means people actively reading the reports, agreeing *swifly* to edits (obviously takes much longer if there is debate about the changes)
Otherwise, I think it's best we aim for the July GNSO Council meeting (July 19th, documents due July 9th) for finalization of our work. This would still require weekly calls, to get things edited properly.
I'm going to bed, but I'll wait and see if anyone can convince me by 4 pm Toronto time on Sunday (different time zones, so some of you might fix that document Petter circulated, we might see a draft final report to review, who knows). At that time, I'll decide whether to formalize this.
NB: If I do invoke a section 3.7 appeal, it's not intended to *stop* the coming call on Tuesday, or stop any of the work we're doing. It's only intended to prevent a half-baked unreviewed/unedited document to be sent to GNSO Council a week from now -- we'd still work on that, regardless of the outcome of the Section 3.7. I'll make myself readily available to Petter/Susan/Heather so they can decide things quickly.
My preference would be that Susan and Heather take a look at the shoddy work represented by that document we saw a few hours ago, replete with errors, and realize that folks really need to raise the standards of the output being produced. Imposing an artificial deadline isn't good for quality control.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...
P.S. Kudos to Reg for stepping up and offering to do her own summary of the feedback on Sunday morning (I intend to do the same, independently).
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. > > Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary & Steve > > On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rlevy@tucows.com> wrote: > > I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. > > Reg Levy > (310) 963-7135 > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only > > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was > > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > > > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." > > > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear > > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might > > want to weigh in again). > > > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others > > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort > > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. > > > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone > > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part > > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher > > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny > > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time > > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we > > want to do it right? > > > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- > > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's > > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus > > designation levels. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the > >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, > >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative > >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial > >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we > >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* > >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group > >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation > >> Levels. > >> > >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago > >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html > >> > >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can > >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough > >> support." > >> > >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html > >> > >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." > >> > >> I don't understand what's going on there. > >> > >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, > >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have > >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus > >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] > >> > >> When Reg wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > >> > >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. > >> > >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's > >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did > >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of > >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads... > >> > >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with > >> the newer responses at some point. > >> > >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is > >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not > >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. > >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually > >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the > >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might > >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most > >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). > >> > >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis > >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. > >> > >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone > >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have > >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we > >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be > >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another > >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work > >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> George Kirikos > >> 416-588-0269 > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth > >> <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote: > >>> Dear All WG Members, > >>> > >>> Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call. > >>> > >>> I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached > >>> document, to discuss further on Tuesday. > >>> > >>> For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: > >>> > >>> Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation > >>> in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous > >>> Consensus. > >>> > >>> Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree. > >>> > >>> Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of > >>> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those > >>> who do not support it. > >>> > >>> Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't > >>> strong support for any particular position, but many different points of > >>> view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and > >>> sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or > >>> convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth > >>> listing the issue in the report nonetheless. > >>> > >>> Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support > >>> the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong > >>> support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases > >>> where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a > >>> small number of individuals > >>> > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> Petter > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Petter Rindforth, LL M > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Fenix Legal KB > >>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr > >>> 114 35 Stockholm > >>> Sweden > >>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > >>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > >>> E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu > >>> www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> > >>> NOTICE > >>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to > >>> whom it is addressed. > >>> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and > >>> attorney work product. > >>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are > >>> requested not to read, > >>> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. > >>> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > >>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> Thank you > >>> > >>> > >>> 5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon > >>> <andrea.glandon@icann.org>: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will > >>> take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > >>> > >>> 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 > >>> Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST > >>> > >>> For other times: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d=... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v... > >>> > >>> Web conference tool: Adobe Connect > >>> > >>> Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If > >>> you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&... [tinyurl.com] > >>> > >>> Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room > >>> are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if > >>> your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as > >>> attachment for you to download to your calendar. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working > >>> group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to > >>> gnso-secs@icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the > >>> Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers > >>> and participant passcode below. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Participant passcode: IGO > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dial in numbers: > >>> > >>> Country > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Toll Numbers > >>> > >>> Freephone/ > >>> Toll Free Number > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ARGENTINA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-777-0519 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> ADELAIDE: > >>> > >>> 61-8-8121-4842 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> BRISBANE: > >>> > >>> 61-7-3102-0944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> CANBERRA: > >>> > >>> 61-2-6100-1944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> MELBOURNE: > >>> > >>> 61-3-9010-7713 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> PERTH: > >>> > >>> 61-8-9467-5223 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> SYDNEY: > >>> > >>> 61-2-8205-8129 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 43-1-92-81-113 > >>> > >>> 0800-005-259 > >>> > >>> BELGIUM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 32-2-400-9861 > >>> > >>> 0800-3-8795 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> RIO DE JANEIRO: > >>> > >>> 55-21-40421490 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> SAO PAULO: > >>> > >>> 55-11-3958-0779 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> CHILE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1230-020-2863 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA A: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-712-1670 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA B: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-120-1670 > >>> > >>> COLOMBIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 01800-9-156474 > >>> > >>> CROATIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-08-06-309 > >>> > >>> CZECH REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 420-2-25-98-56-64 > >>> > >>> 800-700-177 > >>> > >>> DENMARK > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 45-7014-0284 > >>> > >>> 8088-8324 > >>> > >>> EGYPT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800000-9029 > >>> > >>> ESTONIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-011-1093 > >>> > >>> FINLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 358-9-5424-7162 > >>> > >>> 0-800-9-14610 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> LYON: > >>> > >>> 33-4-26-69-12-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> MARSEILLE: > >>> > >>> 33-4-86-06-00-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> PARIS: > >>> > >>> 33-1-70-70-60-72 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> GERMANY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 49-69-2222-20362 > >>> > >>> 0800-664-4247 > >>> > >>> GREECE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 30-80-1-100-0687 > >>> > >>> 00800-12-7312 > >>> > >>> HONG KONG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 852-3001-3863 > >>> > >>> 800-962-856 > >>> > >>> HUNGARY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 36-1-700-8856 > >>> > >>> 06-800-12755 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA A: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-852-1268 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA B: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-001-6305 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA C: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1800-300-00491 > >>> > >>> INDONESIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-803-011-3982 > >>> > >>> IRELAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 353-1-246-7646 > >>> > >>> 1800-992-368 > >>> > >>> ISRAEL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-80-9216162 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> MILAN: > >>> > >>> 39-02-3600-6007 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> ROME: > >>> > >>> 39-06-8751-6018 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> TORINO: > >>> > >>> 39-011-510-0118 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> OSAKA: > >>> > >>> 81-6-7878-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> TOKYO: > >>> > >>> 81-3-6868-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> LATVIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-3185 > >>> > >>> LUXEMBOURG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 352-27-000-1364 > >>> > >>> 8002-9246 > >>> > >>> MALAYSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-800-81-3065 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> GUADALAJARA (JAL): > >>> > >>> 52-33-3208-7310 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MEXICO CITY: > >>> > >>> 52-55-5062-9110 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MONTERREY: > >>> > >>> 52-81-2482-0610 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> NETHERLANDS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 31-20-718-8588 > >>> > >>> 0800-023-4378 > >>> > >>> NEW ZEALAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 64-9-970-4771 > >>> > >>> 0800-447-722 > >>> > >>> NORWAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 47-21-590-062 > >>> > >>> 800-15157 > >>> > >>> PANAMA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 011-001-800-5072065 > >>> > >>> PERU > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-53713 > >>> > >>> PHILIPPINES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 63-2-858-3716 > >>> > >>> 1800-111-42453 > >>> > >>> POLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-1212572 > >>> > >>> PORTUGAL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 351-2-10054705 > >>> > >>> 8008-14052 > >>> > >>> ROMANIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 40-31-630-01-79 > >>> > >>> > >>> RUSSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8-10-8002-0144011 > >>> > >>> SAUDI ARABIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-8-110087 > >>> > >>> SINGAPORE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 65-6883-9230 > >>> > >>> 800-120-4663 > >>> > >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 421-2-322-422-25 > >>> > >>> 0800-002066 > >>> > >>> SOUTH AFRICA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-09-80414 > >>> > >>> SOUTH KOREA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 82-2-6744-1083 > >>> > >>> 00798-14800-7352 > >>> > >>> SPAIN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 34-91-414-25-33 > >>> > >>> 800-300-053 > >>> > >>> SWEDEN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 46-8-566-19-348 > >>> > >>> 0200-884-622 > >>> > >>> SWITZERLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 41-44-580-6398 > >>> > >>> 0800-120-032 > >>> > >>> TAIWAN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 886-2-2795-7379 > >>> > >>> 00801-137-797 > >>> > >>> THAILAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-800-1206-66056 > >>> > >>> TURKEY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-151-0516 > >>> > >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-35702370 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> BIRMINGHAM: > >>> > >>> 44-121-210-9025 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> GLASGOW: > >>> > >>> 44-141-202-3225 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LEEDS: > >>> > >>> 44-113-301-2125 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LONDON: > >>> > >>> 44-20-7108-6370 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> MANCHESTER: > >>> > >>> 44-161-601-1425 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> URUGUAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-413-598-3421 > >>> > >>> USA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-517-345-9004 > >>> > >>> 866-692-5726 > >>> > >>> VENEZUELA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-1-00-3702 > >>> > >>> VIETNAM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 120-11751 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
P.S. The recording of the call has just been posted to the wiki, see: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-07-02+Discussion+Call Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:34 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
Just wanted to provide an update on the Section 3.7 appeal. We (Petter, Mary and myself) just concluded a 1 hour callThe recording will likely appear on the Wiki shortly, but it was a productive and constructive call, in my view. Three topics were discussed:
A] Deadline for completion of our work B] The nature/terminology of a "consensus call" C] Role of ICANN staff in a PDP working group
Most of the time was spent on the practical issue of today, namely making sure we have adequate time to complete our work successfully. At this point, only the finalization of the Final Report remains, as we've reached agreement on the consensus designation levels and text of the recommendations (as of June 21st).
From my perspective, the issues/problems were:
- we didn't have a call last week (and none had yet been scheduled for this week) - still hadn't received a draft final report to review since June 21 - we have a GNSO Council resolution (passed last week) setting an expectation for a final report in time for their July meeting (which sets a deadline for documents one week for today, namely July 9th, 10 days before their July 19th meeting); although, there might be some 'wiggle room', as the wording of the resolution didn't specify any penalties for missing that deadline - we have a GAC communique from last week (hasn't been sent to our list) where IGOs are unhappy, which perhaps requires some adjustment to our background rationales, to make sure we've documented all our reasons fully - different levels of engagement of PDP participants, which might make it hard to finish a report 7 days from now - practical reality that July 4th is a US holiday, which affects members' ability to respond quickly to feedback, if they're on holidays, etc. - leaving time for minority reports (which presumably want to base it on a final report, before writing rebuttals)
I had brainstormed 5 options to handle these issues:
i. keep to the deadline, and have calls on Thursday and Sunday (so we can be done by Monday) ii. try to have a placeholder report ready for July 9th, with a finalized report several days later (giving us a chance to have another call early next week, rather than Sunday) iii. shift to an August deadline (gives us more than enough time to finish) iv. check how firm the July 19th GNSO council meeting date is; i.e. if they moved *their meeting* 1 week later, to July 26th, that would move the deadline for documents to July 16th, giving us enough time to finish; their prior meeting was June 27, so that means there would be only 3 weeks between that meeting and the scheduled July 19th meeting v. perhaps GNSO council would schedule an entirely separate "special meeting" between their normal July and August meetings just for this IGO PDP topic, thus giving us a couple of weeks to wrap things up (would be finished sooner than their August meeting)
Without seeing the draft final report, it's difficult to make an assessment as to how many changes will be required between it and a final report (and depends on how contentious proposed changes are perceived). But, at this point we've focused on:
a) seeing the draft final report coming out today b) scheduling a call for this Thursday to go over it, and any changes that might be required to the draft c) assessing at that point where we are
The other 2 issues (nature of a "consensus call", and "role of ICANN staff") were more broader questions, which perhaps might be clarified through clearer working group guidelines. I think we arrived at the right place in terms of achieving consensus, but some of the process leading up to that point was ambiguous, which led to concerns. Same for the role of ICANN staff, sometimes perceived (fairly or unfairly) as not being 'neutral' (depending on one's perspective, of course). Those drafting updates to PDP working group guidelines should perhaps listen to the recording to see the precise concerns (or contact separately to discuss).
In conclusion, I thank Mary and Petter for the positive spirit of the call, and hope that we can get out a final report that we can all be proud of in a timely manner. If the timing needs to be tweaked slightly, I hope GNSO Council will accommodate our needs (despite their resolution) to ensure that the best possible work comes out of our PDP. We're 95%+ done, but sometimes that final 5% can take time to get right.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As promised, as per section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...
I hereby invoke the appeal mechanism, as the Chair, Liaison (Susan) and Staff are "not performing their role according to the criteria in Section 2.2." and furthermore are working to sabotage the final report of this working group through the unilateral imposition of unrealistically short deadlines for the report which would negatively affect its quality. Furthermore, they are not following the correct procedures for a Consensus Call, although they falsely claim to have already completed one.
On May 25, 2018, they opened up what they called a "Consensus Call",
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001213.html
even though a real consensus call requires that the opening of a consensus call include (1) a nearly complete final report and (2) an initial designation level of consensus for each recommendation. I pointed this out in a call before that May 25, 2018 email but was ignored. I further pointed it out in email on June 6, 2018:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
with examples of 2 other PDPs.
Furthermore, to understand appropriate deadlines for editing documents (which we've not even received to date) it is educational to look at the response times of the Chair Petter Rindforth (and prior co-chair Phil Corwin, when applicable), Heather Forrest (GNSO Council Chair) and Susan Kawaguchi (Liaison). If their response times were superhumanly fast, then they might have a case for expecting everyone else to respond very fast to draft final reports, edits, and so on. However, their response times are slow, at best. For example:
i) Phil/Petter -- weeks to schedule calls for the first Section 3.7 appeal (initiated in December 2017). 5 days sought to respond to my first written document (which is obviously much shorter than the final report). Obviously a single response from a small group (2 people) whose interests are aligned will take much less time than editing a document where there are more group members and obvious divisions, where it will take multiple edits and an iterative process to come to agreement on final text.
ii) Heather -- her typical turnaround time to respond to emails has been on the order of 1 *week*. And that's when she even bothers to respond at all.
iii) Susan -- even longer gaps in response times. e.g. March 14 2018 "office hours":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html
with no summary report until a month later.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
And that was a *3 page* document. I made comments on it, was forced to write an "Everything wrong with the summary report" email on April 26:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
(attachment at bottom of that page) and pointed out 2 weeks later that obvious issues I'd raised earlier had still not been addressed:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
iv) Petter: today's email regarding obvious issues in yesterday's document (falsely claiming to be "Results of a consensus call", but which is in fact just an initial designation level, a flawed one at that) is telling:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001252.html
Rather than go back and fix the multiple obvious errors, and reissue the document immediately with a sense of urgency and in a timely manner, he takes a lackadaisical approach, procrastinating and forcing others to ultimately have to redo his work. He's happy to take all the time he wants to create his documents, but then others are expected to make substantial comments on a yet to be issued nearly final draft of a final report in an impossibly fast manner.
That's inconsistent and asymmetric, holding others to a standard that he himself doesn't uphold for his own substandard work.
On April 26, 2018, Susan stated:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001138.html
"It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive the effort to a final document for presentation to Council."
But, on May 10, 2018, she claimed:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript...
"This was a decision made by GNSO Council leadership and we’re going to move forward with the current agenda. " (page 4)
and
" Paul Keating: Okay, Susan, can you commit that you're not going to release a report for filing – or for consideration by the Council prior to us completing our consensus process? I’m asking you point blank, yes or no.
Susan Kawaguchi: Yes, point blank, yes."
But, as I pointed out above, we've not had a proper consensus call yet (i.e. we've not seen the nearly final draft report, nor had the initial designations which accompany it, and the usual 2 weeks to make changes, and usually a week or so to tidy up the final document.
Furthermore, the May 24, 2018 GNSO Council meeting transcript demonstrates that there was no resolution passed compelling a June deadline for this PDP, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021353.html https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-council-24may18-en.pdf [pages 22-26] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-May/021364.html
It was a "decision" that didn't come from the working group members, but was imposed on us.
Page 25 of that transcript even acknowledges that the Chair of the GNSO Council doesn't *have* that kind of decision-making authority in the first place.
"That 3.7 is really an interesting beast in a sense of what it asks of the GNSO Chair who for all intents and purposes everywhere else in our documents doesn’t have any sort of a decision making role and ****nor does 3.7 give the chair the authority to make any decisions****, if you like, it’s really just a reference for the discussion; if the discussion is unsuccessful with the cochairs or the chairs of the PDP then the matter gets discussed with the chair." (emphasis added)
Thus, any claimed "decision" made by "GNSO Council leadership" is illegitimate. The proper procedure (if we could not resolve things ourselves) would have involved allowing me to make my case to GNSO Council, so *they* could make a decisio, via a resolution/vote. This never happened.
ICANN staff continually inject their own policy ideas into this PDP. That is inconsistent with their clerical role as per section 2.2.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. Furthermore, as "secretary" (section 2.2.3), they're not adequately recording the working group's activities. (we've yet to even see the nearly final version of the Final Report, that we must then edit, etc.).
In conclusion, I ask that these issues be corrected, and that we be given sufficient time to complete the final report (perhaps for the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting, if sufficient effort is agreed to be made to keep the work moving forward, with ongoing weekly calls and timely edits, etc. to keep us on track).
[There had been a suggestion in May of a "Placeholder document", see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
but I'm not confident we'd be able to finish that in a timely manner, with the expectation of a final document for the upcoming June council meeting]
Note that I do not wish for the upcoming call (Tuesday) to be cancelled, nor for our work to stop. This Section 3.7 appeal is simply intended to fix the various issues I've raised, and give us sufficient time to produce a polished final report.
I will make myself readily available for the required phone calls with the Chair of this PDP and/or the GNSO Council chair. [feel free to simply pick up the phone and call me!]
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Less than 1 hour left (it's just after 3:00 pm now in Toronto). Does anyone think I bluff? (especially after already filing a DIDP request this morning) Given I've not heard anything to change my mind yet, if Petter, Susan and Heather have time *today* (right after 4 pm Toronto time), that might move things along expeditiously, after the 3.7 is invoked, to immediately have the required calls, etc.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 9:08 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Not good enough, Mary. Not even close to being good enough.
Had I been in your position (your = Mary, Steve, Petter), the *first* thing I would have done was immediately acknowledge to the group that there were obvious errors in the document, and it would have been accompanied by an apology. Then, I would have immediately taken ownership of the issue, and told people to hold off on reading it, and would have *recounted* all the support levels, and then double- and triple-checked them to get it right. I would have worked through the night to get it done, in order to make sure that others wouldn't have to redo the work, and would have time to review things.
We have your response that I'm replying to, and we also have Petter's:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001247.html
which fail to come close to being an acceptable response. It is trivial to verify that Mike Rodenbaugh's input wasn't reflected in the report. Trivial to verify that David Maher's input was similarly ignored. And so on.
There's a pattern here. The last time there were blatantly obvious mistakes in reports, did you guys fix them in a timely manner? Go read the post at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
where I kept calling out this issue, wrong counts of the inputs. I'm forced to write these long "rebuttal" documents constantly pointing out things like "Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report from the Liaison":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html
and even then, there's no sense of urgency from the ones making mistakes to take ownership and correct things in a timely manner. And even when they are later "fixed", they're slipped in with no explanation, and I have little confidence that the updated numbers are actually correct.
I think it's clear that this PDP would have gone into oblivion, with no consensus on Rec #5, until I took it upon myself to get folks to start posting transparently on the mailing list what their views were. See the thread "Public Display of Possible Consensus":
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html
which I started because you guys created a non-transparent procedure (one not supported by the working group guidelines), and even then the numbers were *obviously* wrong, because they didn't add up (i.e. the 10 minute private calls with Susan + staff at the last ICANN meeting, supplemented by private emails). See the post that started it off at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html
The results of that open and transparent process (in line with working group guidelines) were very different with what Susan + staff prepared. The email at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
painted a pretty picture showing that we were coalescing around consensus (around an option that the co-chairs and staff didn't like!). Rather than recognizing that, as I put it poetically, that "something magical was happening"
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001155.html
Contrast that with what Susan + ICANN staff prepared (with *all* their time and resources) on April 13:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001111.html
(basically a *month* after the ICANN meeting) It really contains just half a page of poorly aggregated summary. Compare that with:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...
which didn't leave out anything, and laid things all on the table. And the Google docs was produced in a much more timely manner. And I'm not on ICANN salary, either.
This demonstrable progress in achieving consensus was looked at with disdain. It wouldn't even get posted to the WebEx or Wiki by ICANN staff at that call. Phil Corwin resigned as co-chair shortly thereafter.
Then, we wasted several weeks doing it all over again! As Mike Rodenbaugh said:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
"How many times do we have to say the same thing? My position has not changed since the last time I was asked, or the time before that."
One definition of "insanity" is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We did do it all over again, regardless, and the results were essentially the same (with a few new contributors)
Now we're left with an artificially imposed and compressed time-frame to do 3 or 4 weeks' worth of work in a week (and it's really less than a week, because we know the last 2 days of that deadline are a Saturday and Sunday, and we know that our "Thursday" call was moved to "Tuesday", so presumably people have time conflicts on Thursday should we need to meet again or respond quickly to edits, feedback, etc. And even then, there should be time given for minority reports. So really we should be done by Thursday, to give people time do do minority reports by Sunday (that's really not fair to them, giving them just 3 days, 2 of which are weekend days, to finish their own work, but that's how the math is looking). And yet, it's now Sunday, and we don't even *have* the latest draft report to work on!
I know I'm being forceful and assertive here, and am some might perceive that I'm not a "team player" by pointing all these issues out. But, I'm trying to raise the standards and get the job done correctly, achieving a final document that we can all be proud of. I've been the one helping to achieve a consensus, working with others. Instead, we risk producing a half-baked final report that the IGOs/GAC criticize unfairly, and that doesn't pass through the ICANN Board.
Who'd be the beneficiary of that "bad" outcome where our report doesn't get accepted? Those who oppose the apparent consensus (Option #1). And that happens to be the current chair, the past co-chair, and ICANN staff themselves (ICANN staff repeatedly voiced opposition to Option #1, even though they're not members of this PDP -- they're here for clerical support).
Phil Corwin openly points to that risk:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html
"This option, regardless of support level or subsequent action by the GNSO Council, is highly unlikely to ever be adopted by the ICANN Board given the near-certainty of strong adverse advice from the GAC."
I believe we have a strong justification for Option #1, and have very thorough and sound analysis to justify our positions. It's a recommendation that is backed by a diverse set of stakeholders participating in this PDP. It's all on the mailing list archives and on the past phone calls, but *hasn't* been put into the Final Report yet. It's incumbent upon us to put it into the Final Report, so that it's all properly captured, in anticipation of counter-arguments that will be used to try to undermine it. The IGOs/GAC will not be pointing out all the arguments on the mailing list. They're going to point to the Final Report alone. And the Board is only going to rely upon that Final Report to see if the IGOs arguments are incorrect (there's certainly not going to be any future "rebuttal" opportunity to to respond to anything the IGOs say).
In conclusion, I want to see this work behind us as much (if not more) as everyone else. But, I do want to make sure that the Final Report is of high quality, and I don't see that happening in the next week (especially given Mary and Petter's most recent responses).
But, feel free to convince me I'm wrong on this. Give me some new information or insight I'm missing. Or, acknowledge the hard truth that we should take the 3 or 4 weeks to get this done by the July GNSO Council meeting. (and that's with *continuation* of weekly calls, and active participation on the mailing list, to get the edits done; i.e. don't just add 3 or 4 weeks, and then take a leisurely pause and do nothing for several weeks, setting up another last-minute rush job in the first week of July; i.e. we should be working through things during the ICANN meeting, and setting up calls now, and having rapid turns on new/update language, so we can cross the finish line and not procrastinate).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
I am sorry to hear that you find the staff work to be sloppy, shoddy and imprecise, and that you believe we have been nonchalant in how we have approached our duties with respect to this PDP. I hope you will permit me, as the senior staff member supporting this group, to say that I believe we have tried to discharge our duties as professionally and competently as possible in the circumstances. As I mentioned in my last email to the Working Group, Steve and I will be working with Petter and Susan to ensure that concerns, agreements and disagreements are captured and discussed appropriately, and the draft Final Report updated in accordance with GNSO rules and practice.
Best regards, Mary
On 6/10/18, 12:32, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
[For those I've cc'd on this email, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/date.html
and
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html ("initial designations document" is attachment is at very end of the page) ]
I am incredulous at Mary and Steve's nonchalant response to the email thread, seemingly ignoring the fact that the document that was sent to the mailing list today was replete with errors. I had thought that this was a product solely of Petter's creation, but it looks like there's blame to go around --- the metadata of the document that was sent to the list shows the "author" was "Mary Wong". So, it appears that the document had received multiple views by them, and even after this email thread, it seems it's "business as usual" at their end, as if nothing is wrong. Truly stunning.
Besides the problems that were **already** pointed out, there's the fact that:
1. Mike Rodenbaugh's input was completely ignored! How hard is it to read:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001221.html
and then go back to:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001167.html
2. David Maher's input was completely ignored! His was the very first response at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html
and his name is *nowhere* in the document!
3, Zak and Nat are listed as *supporters* of Option #3 (i.e. the arbitration), when they were against:
Zak: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html
"I understand *Option 3* and appreciate the objective and rationale behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form.
Nat: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html
"I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments-
*Option #3* - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration."
It's very odd to count that as "support" for Option #3 -- that's not how I read it at all, given Nat (and Zak) supported Option #1.
4. there could be even more errors (i.e. folks should double-check what was listed in that document)
Does anyone truly believe that, in a week (remember, the "deadline" is supposedly June 17) we can (a) fix all the errors in the designations (b) have time for objections (i.e. the iterative process in section 3.6 of the working group guidelines), (c) review a draft final report (there were long sections missing), (d) submit comments/amend that draft final report, (e) agree to all the relevant changes for the final report, (f) leave time for those who want to make minority statements (which they can't really do until the final report is close to finalization).
The most recent draft final report was from May 9:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001164.html
and there's really very little good text discussing recommendation #5 (i.e. capturing the full debate that took place, pros/cons, etc., so that a reader of the report could actually understand them). Go look at page 44 to 48 -- is that it? It's mostly spent just listing the options, and then a whole bunch of process stuff, but nothing that would lead a reader to understand why this was debated for over a year. There's obviously other sections that need to be fixed too.
Remember, there's only *1* call scheduled (this Tuesday), and then no other calls are scheduled.
Normally, there's a 2 week clock that *begins* when a close-to-final draft final report is circulated, *along* with the specification of the "initial designation levels" (which Petter only provided a few hours ago) -- see the examples of past PDPs I mentioned at the top of my earlier email:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
If we had a 2 week clock that started when we actually receive a new draft, then that might be reasonable. Then, maybe another week to finalize edits. But, this would be with the draft document being actively updated, and folks actively submitting comments. I don't see how that would happen, given that folks are now also getting ready for the upcoming ICANN meeting.
I asked repeatedly that we keep up our weekly calls, so we could drive the work forward, but it didn't happen. Go look at the wiki -- we had a call April 19, May 10, May 25, and that was it! Huge gaps of wasted time, where we should have been doing what we're now asked to do in a single week.
Anyhow, if folks believe we can finish everything in a week, that normally takes three or four weeks, convince me. I'm willing to put in the work do so, but I can't do it all. That means people actively reading the reports, agreeing *swifly* to edits (obviously takes much longer if there is debate about the changes)
Otherwise, I think it's best we aim for the July GNSO Council meeting (July 19th, documents due July 9th) for finalization of our work. This would still require weekly calls, to get things edited properly.
I'm going to bed, but I'll wait and see if anyone can convince me by 4 pm Toronto time on Sunday (different time zones, so some of you might fix that document Petter circulated, we might see a draft final report to review, who knows). At that time, I'll decide whether to formalize this.
NB: If I do invoke a section 3.7 appeal, it's not intended to *stop* the coming call on Tuesday, or stop any of the work we're doing. It's only intended to prevent a half-baked unreviewed/unedited document to be sent to GNSO Council a week from now -- we'd still work on that, regardless of the outcome of the Section 3.7. I'll make myself readily available to Petter/Susan/Heather so they can decide things quickly.
My preference would be that Susan and Heather take a look at the shoddy work represented by that document we saw a few hours ago, replete with errors, and realize that folks really need to raise the standards of the output being produced. Imposing an artificial deadline isn't good for quality control.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c...
P.S. Kudos to Reg for stepping up and offering to do her own summary of the feedback on Sunday morning (I intend to do the same, independently).
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thank you to all who have weighed in with their views as to the various proposed policy recommendations and the six options relating to immunity. This note is being sent to remind everyone that the consensus call process is not a formal voting process. As Working Group chair, Petter had sent his views as to the initial designations of consensus (based on the standard methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) and staff will work with him and Susan to ensure that the group's concerns, agreements and disagreements, if any, are captured and discussed as appropriate. > > Staff is also working on updating the draft Final Report with some of the suggestions made that seem consistent with the overall discussions and agreements reached. We hope to circulate an update very soon. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary & Steve > > On 6/10/18, 08:02, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Reg Levy" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of rlevy@tucows.com> wrote: > > I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”. > > Reg Levy > (310) 963-7135 > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > > P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only > > person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was > > *vehemently* against that recommendation too: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > > > > "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." > > > > Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear > > on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might > > want to weigh in again). > > > > Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others > > can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort > > that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. > > > > I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone > > on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part > > of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher > > profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny > > that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time > > crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we > > want to do it right? > > > > I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- > > I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's > > positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus > > designation levels. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the > >> Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, > >> and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative > >> process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial > >> designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we > >> should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* > >> what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group > >> guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation > >> Levels. > >> > >> 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago > >> which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html > >> > >> "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can > >> support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough > >> support." > >> > >> but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html > >> > >> "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." > >> > >> I don't understand what's going on there. > >> > >> 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, > >> e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have > >> prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus > >> for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] > >> > >> When Reg wrote: > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html > >> > >> I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. > >> > >> In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's > >> "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did > >> last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of > >> possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): > >> > >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads... > >> > >> where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with > >> the newer responses at some point. > >> > >> The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is > >> indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not > >> against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. > >> i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually > >> been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the > >> issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might > >> be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most > >> recent responses in the past 2 weeks). > >> > >> Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis > >> later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. > >> > >> This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone > >> calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have > >> been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we > >> have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be > >> compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another > >> Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work > >> hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> George Kirikos > >> 416-588-0269 > >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth > >> <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote: > >>> Dear All WG Members, > >>> > >>> Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call. > >>> > >>> I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached > >>> document, to discuss further on Tuesday. > >>> > >>> For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: > >>> > >>> Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation > >>> in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous > >>> Consensus. > >>> > >>> Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree. > >>> > >>> Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of > >>> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those > >>> who do not support it. > >>> > >>> Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't > >>> strong support for any particular position, but many different points of > >>> view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and > >>> sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or > >>> convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth > >>> listing the issue in the report nonetheless. > >>> > >>> Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support > >>> the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong > >>> support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases > >>> where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a > >>> small number of individuals > >>> > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> Petter > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Petter Rindforth, LL M > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Fenix Legal KB > >>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr > >>> 114 35 Stockholm > >>> Sweden > >>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > >>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > >>> E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu > >>> www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> > >>> NOTICE > >>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to > >>> whom it is addressed. > >>> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and > >>> attorney work product. > >>> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are > >>> requested not to read, > >>> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. > >>> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > >>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > >>> Thank you > >>> > >>> > >>> 5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon > >>> <andrea.glandon@icann.org>: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will > >>> take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. > >>> > >>> 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 > >>> Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST > >>> > >>> For other times: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y865xn8y&d=... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Agenda Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v... > >>> > >>> Web conference tool: Adobe Connect > >>> > >>> Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If > >>> you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&... [tinyurl.com] > >>> > >>> Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room > >>> are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if > >>> your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as > >>> attachment for you to download to your calendar. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working > >>> group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to > >>> gnso-secs@icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the > >>> Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers > >>> and participant passcode below. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Please let me know if you have any questions. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Andrea > >>> > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Participant passcode: IGO > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dial in numbers: > >>> > >>> Country > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Toll Numbers > >>> > >>> Freephone/ > >>> Toll Free Number > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ARGENTINA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-777-0519 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> ADELAIDE: > >>> > >>> 61-8-8121-4842 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> BRISBANE: > >>> > >>> 61-7-3102-0944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> CANBERRA: > >>> > >>> 61-2-6100-1944 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> MELBOURNE: > >>> > >>> 61-3-9010-7713 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> PERTH: > >>> > >>> 61-8-9467-5223 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRALIA > >>> > >>> SYDNEY: > >>> > >>> 61-2-8205-8129 > >>> > >>> 1-800-657-260 > >>> > >>> AUSTRIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 43-1-92-81-113 > >>> > >>> 0800-005-259 > >>> > >>> BELGIUM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 32-2-400-9861 > >>> > >>> 0800-3-8795 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> RIO DE JANEIRO: > >>> > >>> 55-21-40421490 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> BRAZIL > >>> > >>> SAO PAULO: > >>> > >>> 55-11-3958-0779 > >>> > >>> 0800-7610651 > >>> > >>> CHILE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1230-020-2863 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA A: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-712-1670 > >>> > >>> CHINA > >>> > >>> CHINA B: > >>> > >>> 86-400-810-4789 > >>> > >>> 10800-120-1670 > >>> > >>> COLOMBIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 01800-9-156474 > >>> > >>> CROATIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-08-06-309 > >>> > >>> CZECH REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 420-2-25-98-56-64 > >>> > >>> 800-700-177 > >>> > >>> DENMARK > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 45-7014-0284 > >>> > >>> 8088-8324 > >>> > >>> EGYPT > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800000-9029 > >>> > >>> ESTONIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-011-1093 > >>> > >>> FINLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 358-9-5424-7162 > >>> > >>> 0-800-9-14610 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> LYON: > >>> > >>> 33-4-26-69-12-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> MARSEILLE: > >>> > >>> 33-4-86-06-00-85 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> FRANCE > >>> > >>> PARIS: > >>> > >>> 33-1-70-70-60-72 > >>> > >>> 080-511-1496 > >>> > >>> GERMANY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 49-69-2222-20362 > >>> > >>> 0800-664-4247 > >>> > >>> GREECE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 30-80-1-100-0687 > >>> > >>> 00800-12-7312 > >>> > >>> HONG KONG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 852-3001-3863 > >>> > >>> 800-962-856 > >>> > >>> HUNGARY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 36-1-700-8856 > >>> > >>> 06-800-12755 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA A: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-852-1268 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA B: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-800-001-6305 > >>> > >>> INDIA > >>> > >>> INDIA C: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1800-300-00491 > >>> > >>> INDONESIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-803-011-3982 > >>> > >>> IRELAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 353-1-246-7646 > >>> > >>> 1800-992-368 > >>> > >>> ISRAEL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-80-9216162 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> MILAN: > >>> > >>> 39-02-3600-6007 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> ROME: > >>> > >>> 39-06-8751-6018 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> ITALY > >>> > >>> TORINO: > >>> > >>> 39-011-510-0118 > >>> > >>> 800-986-383 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> OSAKA: > >>> > >>> 81-6-7878-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> JAPAN > >>> > >>> TOKYO: > >>> > >>> 81-3-6868-2631 > >>> > >>> 0066-33-132439 > >>> > >>> LATVIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-3185 > >>> > >>> LUXEMBOURG > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 352-27-000-1364 > >>> > >>> 8002-9246 > >>> > >>> MALAYSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-800-81-3065 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> GUADALAJARA (JAL): > >>> > >>> 52-33-3208-7310 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MEXICO CITY: > >>> > >>> 52-55-5062-9110 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> MEXICO > >>> > >>> MONTERREY: > >>> > >>> 52-81-2482-0610 > >>> > >>> 001-866-376-9696 > >>> > >>> NETHERLANDS > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 31-20-718-8588 > >>> > >>> 0800-023-4378 > >>> > >>> NEW ZEALAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 64-9-970-4771 > >>> > >>> 0800-447-722 > >>> > >>> NORWAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 47-21-590-062 > >>> > >>> 800-15157 > >>> > >>> PANAMA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 011-001-800-5072065 > >>> > >>> PERU > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-53713 > >>> > >>> PHILIPPINES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 63-2-858-3716 > >>> > >>> 1800-111-42453 > >>> > >>> POLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-1212572 > >>> > >>> PORTUGAL > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 351-2-10054705 > >>> > >>> 8008-14052 > >>> > >>> ROMANIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 40-31-630-01-79 > >>> > >>> > >>> RUSSIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8-10-8002-0144011 > >>> > >>> SAUDI ARABIA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 800-8-110087 > >>> > >>> SINGAPORE > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 65-6883-9230 > >>> > >>> 800-120-4663 > >>> > >>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 421-2-322-422-25 > >>> > >>> 0800-002066 > >>> > >>> SOUTH AFRICA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 080-09-80414 > >>> > >>> SOUTH KOREA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 82-2-6744-1083 > >>> > >>> 00798-14800-7352 > >>> > >>> SPAIN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 34-91-414-25-33 > >>> > >>> 800-300-053 > >>> > >>> SWEDEN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 46-8-566-19-348 > >>> > >>> 0200-884-622 > >>> > >>> SWITZERLAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 41-44-580-6398 > >>> > >>> 0800-120-032 > >>> > >>> TAIWAN > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 886-2-2795-7379 > >>> > >>> 00801-137-797 > >>> > >>> THAILAND > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 001-800-1206-66056 > >>> > >>> TURKEY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 00-800-151-0516 > >>> > >>> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 8000-35702370 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> BIRMINGHAM: > >>> > >>> 44-121-210-9025 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> GLASGOW: > >>> > >>> 44-141-202-3225 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LEEDS: > >>> > >>> 44-113-301-2125 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> LONDON: > >>> > >>> 44-20-7108-6370 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> UNITED KINGDOM > >>> > >>> MANCHESTER: > >>> > >>> 44-161-601-1425 > >>> > >>> 0808-238-6029 > >>> > >>> URUGUAY > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 000-413-598-3421 > >>> > >>> USA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1-517-345-9004 > >>> > >>> 866-692-5726 > >>> > >>> VENEZUELA > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 0800-1-00-3702 > >>> > >>> VIETNAM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 120-11751 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > >>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (1)
-
George Kirikos