Announcement: No Working Group call this week
Dear all, As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below). The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group. In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support). Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback. Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs). It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail. Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner: * If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed. * On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report. * Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
Dear Mary, According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison": https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking. Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Thanks Mike. There is no expectation of 'privacy' in a PDP. 1. Section 4.1 of the guidelines clearly states: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf "There is a presumption of full transparency in all WGs. In the extraordinary event that the WG should require confidentiality, it is up to that WG to propose a set of rules and procedures in collaboration with the CO." The first anonymous poll, and the 2nd one that the co-chairs have scheduled, violate that **full transparency** standard. To do otherwise would be "extraordinary", and the WG did not "propose a set of rules and procedures in collaboration with the CO" --- instead, the co-chairs unilaterally imposed their will upon the rest of the working group. 2. Furthermore, Section 6.1.2 of the guidelines states: "6.1.2 Transparency and Openness All Working Groups are expected to operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, inter alia, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and SOIs are required from Working Group participants and will be publicly available. It is important that prospective Working Group members are made aware of these principles." Once again, anonymous polls are not consistent with that section's transparency and openness requirements. I'll note again for the record, as I've pointed out before, that multiple SOIs for PDP "members" have not been posted to the Wiki, another breach of the guidelines. Two SOIs (both created only on December 7, 2017, and not updated since) are openly blank: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Nirmol+Agarwal+SOI https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Gary+Campbell+SOI despite both "members" being listed on the members page at least as early as October 2017: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71600345 https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895 3. Section 6.1.3 is also interesting: "6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expecations of the Chair ... The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being stated, instead of a ‘ruling of the chair.’ However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific position." The one-sided "preliminary notes" to the "Options" document that was circulated by the co-chairs prior to that first poll shows that that standard hasn't been met by the current co-chairs. I invite anyone to re-read that document: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000847.html and try to argue that it was neutral. It was riddled with false statements and half-truths designed to attack Options A and B. The co-chairs did not "refrain from promoting a specific agenda", but instead used that document as *co-chairs* (not as individual members on an equal footing with all other members) to promote and advocate for a specific position, Option C. That is wrong, and a violation of the guidelines. 4. Section 6.1.3 also goes on to say that: "In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO. ... The Chartering Organization, working with the Staff, might consider the use of a professional facilitator, in certain circumstances, to help a Chair ensure neutrality and promote consensus or to provide other capabilities and expertise." That might be a prudent way forward, in my opinion, to ensure neutrality and promote consensus going forward. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I participate in other Wgs that regularly use polling. In EACH Poll the following conditions are applicable: Participant MUST be a member of the WG Participant must state the full name Participant must acknowledge that their identity and response are public and will become part of the record of the WG. Paul On 12/20/17, 2:33 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Thanks Mike. There is no expectation of 'privacy' in a PDP.
1. Section 4.1 of the guidelines clearly states:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pd f
"There is a presumption of full transparency in all WGs. In the extraordinary event that the WG should require confidentiality, it is up to that WG to propose a set of rules and procedures in collaboration with the CO."
The first anonymous poll, and the 2nd one that the co-chairs have scheduled, violate that **full transparency** standard. To do otherwise would be "extraordinary", and the WG did not "propose a set of rules and procedures in collaboration with the CO" --- instead, the co-chairs unilaterally imposed their will upon the rest of the working group.
2. Furthermore, Section 6.1.2 of the guidelines states:
"6.1.2 Transparency and Openness
All Working Groups are expected to operate under the principles of transparency and openness, which means, inter alia, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and SOIs are required from Working Group participants and will be publicly available. It is important that prospective Working Group members are made aware of these principles."
Once again, anonymous polls are not consistent with that section's transparency and openness requirements. I'll note again for the record, as I've pointed out before, that multiple SOIs for PDP "members" have not been posted to the Wiki, another breach of the guidelines. Two SOIs (both created only on December 7, 2017, and not updated since) are openly blank:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Nirmol+Agarwal+SOI https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Gary+Campbell+SOI
despite both "members" being listed on the members page at least as early as October 2017:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71600345 https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895
3. Section 6.1.3 is also interesting:
"6.1.3 Purpose, Importance, and Expecations of the Chair ... The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being stated, instead of a ruling of the chair.¹ However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific position."
The one-sided "preliminary notes" to the "Options" document that was circulated by the co-chairs prior to that first poll shows that that standard hasn't been met by the current co-chairs. I invite anyone to re-read that document:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000847.html
and try to argue that it was neutral. It was riddled with false statements and half-truths designed to attack Options A and B. The co-chairs did not "refrain from promoting a specific agenda", but instead used that document as *co-chairs* (not as individual members on an equal footing with all other members) to promote and advocate for a specific position, Option C. That is wrong, and a violation of the guidelines.
4. Section 6.1.3 also goes on to say that:
"In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO. ... The Chartering Organization, working with the Staff, might consider the use of a professional facilitator, in certain circumstances, to help a Chair ensure neutrality and promote consensus or to provide other capabilities and expertise."
That might be a prudent way forward, in my opinion, to ensure neutrality and promote consensus going forward.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en. pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs¹ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs¹ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear all, Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines. It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus. Zak Muscovitch *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* December-19-17 7:02 PM *To:* George Kirikos *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-. *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Dear Mary, According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison": https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking. Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear Zak, Mike, George and everyone, Staff wishes to clarify that we expressly acknowledged receipt of Paul’s note as he had specifically asked that we do so; however, all emails are publicly posted if sent to the mailing list so all of yours will have been received as well. For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will respond to the mailing list shortly. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:55 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week Dear all, Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines. It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus. Zak Muscovitch From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: December-19-17 7:02 PM To: George Kirikos Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com[rodenbaugh.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=74S3XCBlb1uWLZYCHyEK-vUCIxe7GH4Czn_O6W7BGEw&s=9N_hOLQX47F5irJcYqkNrqWd1Idv_1vA5LJMsfTbwk8&e=> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Dear Mary, According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison": https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=74S3XCBlb1uWLZYCHyEK-vUCIxe7GH4Czn_O6W7BGEw&s=A4DQZBVa2FKRGkjTlPKCTH3zT3PtBedxihPss31V2xE&e=> who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking. Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=74S3XCBlb1uWLZYCHyEK-vUCIxe7GH4Czn_O6W7BGEw&s=MghKTuiS0lKFru6Y-yfus9SmORn7PgQZ9OQbR5nxIJs&e=> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear Mary, With respect, the identity and contact details of "the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative" are entirely independent of any response that the co-chairs and staff wish to make. There's no justifiable reason I can see to withhold that information that I or other members of this PDP might wish to utilize to challenge the actions of the co-chairs in this instance or other past/future instances. Who the appropriate person is for that appeal mechanism should be a matter of public record for all PDP working groups and their participants. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Zak, Mike, George and everyone,
Staff wishes to clarify that we expressly acknowledged receipt of Paul’s note as he had specifically asked that we do so; however, all emails are publicly posted if sent to the mailing list so all of yours will have been received as well.
For your information, our co-chairs are actively considering all feedback received and consulting with staff. We expect that they will respond to the mailing list shortly.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:55 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
Dear all,
Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines.
It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus.
Zak Muscovitch
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: December-19-17 7:02 PM To: George Kirikos Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com[rodenbaugh.com]
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear all, I support Zak’s statement. Regards, Nat Cohen On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:55 AM Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines.
It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus.
Zak Muscovitch
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* December-19-17 7:02 PM *To:* George Kirikos *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-. *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
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
I am very disappointed it has come to this, but I'm biased as I was hoping my proposals could be discussed at least once prior to the poll. What I am raising isn’t a minor matter and I believe the reasoning my proposal relies on if accepted by the working group may mean much of the final report will have to be substantially re-written. We had a similar problem with the draft report on 6ter only evidencing underlying rights but those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting the report to correct that fundamental error. Given we have spent so long on all the issues perhaps it would be helpful if we could have a second draft report and invite public comment on a set of alternatives. (The possibility of second draft report was requested but this was also blocked.) Given these additional issues I too support George’s request for a formal review of the co-chairs decision to hold another anonymous poll at this stage. Best regards, Paul. On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I support Zak’s statement.
Regards,
Nat Cohen
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:55 AM Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines.
It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus.
Zak Muscovitch
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* December-19-17 7:02 PM *To:* George Kirikos *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-. *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
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, On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Given we have spent so long on all the issues perhaps it would be helpful if we could have a second draft report and invite public comment on a set of alternatives. (The possibility of second draft report was requested but this was also blocked.)
Agreed, a second draft report with public comments might make a lot of sense, along with the use of a "completely neutral and independent Chair" and/or "the use of a professional facilitator" as per section 6.1.3 of the guidelines that I quoted from earlier this morning. Fundamental issues of due process for registrants are at stake. The transparency and accountability mechanisms of ICANN need to be strictly followed when such an important issue is being determined. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I agree 100% From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 5:50 PM To: Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I am very disappointed it has come to this, but I'm biased as I was hoping my proposals could be discussed at least once prior to the poll. What I am raising isn¹t a minor matter and I believe the reasoning my proposal relies on if accepted by the working group may mean much of the final report will have to be substantially re-written.
We had a similar problem with the draft report on 6ter only evidencing underlying rights but those driving the working group wouldn't listen and the resulting public comment period wasn't kind. The working group then had to waste a not inconsiderable amount of its time redrafting the report to correct that fundamental error.
Given we have spent so long on all the issues perhaps it would be helpful if we could have a second draft report and invite public comment on a set of alternatives. (The possibility of second draft report was requested but this was also blocked.)
Given these additional issues I too support George¹s request for a formal review of the co-chairs decision to hold another anonymous poll at this stage.
Best regards,
Paul.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
Dear all,
I support Zak¹s statement.
Regards,
Nat Cohen
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:55 AM Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines.
It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus.
Zak Muscovitch
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: December-19-17 7:02 PM To: George Kirikos Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:(415)%20738-8087>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs¹ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs¹ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree, Zak, and would also request the co-chairs to reconsider. Sincerely, Jay On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Further to the emails from George, Mike, and Paul, while I sympathize with the chairs who understandably want to complete the Working Group, and although I do not like us getting sidetracked with process, I must also express my concern and disappointment that an anonymous poll will be relied on as a substitute for a consensus call on the list, as mandated by the Guidelines.
It seems to me to be counterproductive to proceed with the proposed anonymous poll in light of the Guidelines and precedent which this may set, particularly when there appears to be considerable opposition to this approach. I would therefore kindly ask the chairs to reconsider in light of the response that their proposal has received from the Working Group. I hope that we can find a way to move on in an agreed fashion and expeditiously assist the chairs with making the appropriate determination on levels of consensus.
Zak Muscovitch
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* December-19-17 7:02 PM *To:* George Kirikos *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-. *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Announcement: No Working Group call this week
I agree with George on this. I have seen no reasoning to support an anonymous poll, which seems exactly opposite to ICANN's mission of developing policy transparently -- always.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:35 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
According to section 2.2.4 and 3.4, we have a "liaison":
https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf
who can assist and intervene when the working group is having problems. I think the issue of anonymous polling fits the bill, as it's entirely inconsistent with ICANN's transparency requirements, and inconsistent with accountability. ICANN doesn't allow anonymous comments to a PDP public comment period, but the co-chairs have decided they're going to using anonymous polls of PDP members to guide policymaking.
Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines, of the decision to invoke yet another anonymous poll. Assuming I do not hear from the co-chairs (I'm available by phone), I intend to take it up with the chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative. Please identify that person, and their contact details.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As no requests to hold a call this week have been made, please note that there will not be a Working Group call this Thursday 21 December. We will resume our discussions in January, in accordance with the timeline outlined by the co-chairs (below).
The co-chairs have also reviewed the use of polls by the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (RDS) PDP Working Group, since this was brought up during recent mailing list discussions on polling. Phil and Petter believe that the circumstances surrounding the decision to not utilize anonymous polling by the RDS Working Group are substantially different from the situation in our Working Group.
In this case, they believe that an anonymous poll – with all results to be published to the full Working Group except for the identity of the respondent – will encourage greater participation and more candid responses, which will help guide their initial designation of the options for Recommendation 3 (although the expectation is that Recommendations 1, 2, and 4 are likely to continue to have at least consensus support).
Finally, please note that once the co-chairs’ initial designations are published to the WG in January, all further discussion within the WG will be identified with those providing input and feedback.
Thanks and cheers, and wishing everyone happy holidays from the ICANN staff supporting your work,
Mary
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:46 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: PLEASE READ: Co-Chairs' proposal for moving forward to determining consensus
The following email is being sent on behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG co-chairs).
It is the view of the co-chairs that our exhaustive discussion of the options for dealing with the potential situation of an IGO successfully asserting an immunity claim in a judicial context have reached an end point; that all issues relevant to our Charter have been raised, understood and discussed; and that further discussion is unlikely to yield additional options that enjoy consensus support, or sway the view of Working Group participants regarding which option should prevail.
Therefore, the co-chairs intend to proceed in the following manner:
If a significant number of WG members believe that further oral discussion of the three additional options that will be presented in a final consensus call is needed, supplementing the three that were presented for WG consideration in our preliminary consensus call held in October 2017, and that email list discussion is insufficient for WG members to understand the intent and effect of all six options to be included in the consensus call, we will hold a WG meeting on December 21st at our regular time. Please respond to the mailing list if you believe a call on December 21st is needed.
On December 22nd, a second poll will be sent to all WG members. The purpose of this poll is to assist the co-chairs in determining the level of support/opposition that each option enjoys. This poll will ask all WG members to designate one of the six options as their preferred choice for addressing the IGO immunity issue. WG members will also be provided with means to add comments regarding that preferred choice, as well as each of the other five options. These comments can indicate support or opposition for each of the options, as well as whatever additional views a WG members wishes to provide. Responses to this poll will be anonymous, although any WG member will be free to share his/her response on the WG email list. The poll will remain open until Friday January 5th, 2018. The aggregated results of the poll, as well as all comments, will be shared with all WG members and will be included as a section of our Final Report.
Once the poll closes, the co-chairs will review all responses and then share their views with WG members regarding the level of consensus that each option enjoys. We hope to hold the first meeting of the WG on January 11th, 2018 in order to discuss poll results and the co-chairs’ evaluation. The GNSO WG Guidelines provide all WG members with an opportunity to provide feedback on those proposed classifications, and the final consensus level for each option included in the Final Report will be determined under the procedure provided in the Guidelines. As soon as that process is completed we will publish a draft Final Report for WG review and comment, and will provide a reasonable time for all WG members to draft and submit Minority views. We will try to have our Final Report ready for submission to the GNSO Council in order to meet the February 12th, 2018 document submission deadline, at the latest, for its February 22nd meeting.
Please let us know if you have any questions about this procedure. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
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 (8)
-
George Kirikos -
Jay Chapman -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nat Cohen -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Zak Muscovitch