Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Dear George, This note is to confirm that staff will be going ahead to schedule the call between you, Phil and Petter soon, although it will not be before next week. Next Thursday is certainly a possibility, so thank you for the suggestion. As highlighted previously, the call will be recorded and the ICANN Ombudsman invited to attend as an observer. In line with the message from Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, sent to this mailing list on 24 December 2017, if other PDP Working Group members supporting George’s invocation of Section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, please let us know so that we can be sure to send you the call details. Thanks and cheers Mary On 1/2/18, 08:39, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: I'm just following up on the emails of December 21, 2017. Is the Thursday January 4, 2018 date and 12:00 noon (Eastern time) time, corresponding to the usual IGO PDP conference call date/time acceptable? If not, I'd suggest the following week (Thursday January 11, 2018 at 12:00 noon Eastern time) as an alternative. Please advise before the end of the business day today. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of > interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to > proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call > scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would > make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made > open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular > meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to > me. > > I of course do not withdraw the appeal. > > I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I > sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please > explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or > even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't > have 2 days ago? > > Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have > the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure > that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please > ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO > Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so > that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency > and accountability mechanisms. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the >> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the >> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated >> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the >> GNSO Working Group Guidelines >> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...). >> That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes >> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted … >> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that >> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request >> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering >> Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this >> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January >> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that >> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working >> Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be >> invited to sit in on the call. >> >> >> >> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that >> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group >> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the >> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of >> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the >> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO >> Policy Development Processes. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as >> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we >> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. >> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a >> withdrawal of your appeal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philip and Petter >> >>
Dear Mary, I would like to attend the meeting if possible, please can you publish the details or send me a copy? Yours sincerely, Paul. On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
This note is to confirm that staff will be going ahead to schedule the call between you, Phil and Petter soon, although it will not be before next week. Next Thursday is certainly a possibility, so thank you for the suggestion. As highlighted previously, the call will be recorded and the ICANN Ombudsman invited to attend as an observer.
In line with the message from Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, sent to this mailing list on 24 December 2017, if other PDP Working Group members supporting George’s invocation of Section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, please let us know so that we can be sure to send you the call details.
Thanks and cheers Mary
On 1/2/18, 08:39, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I'm just following up on the emails of December 21, 2017. Is the Thursday January 4, 2018 date and 12:00 noon (Eastern time) time, corresponding to the usual IGO PDP conference call date/time acceptable? If not, I'd suggest the following week (Thursday January 11, 2018 at 12:00 noon Eastern time) as an alternative.
Please advise before the end of the business day today.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_ DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=XC5VETDOsHh2D6- W5YTRqueB9blSgkSuG-27KuOy3rM&e=
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of > interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to > proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call > scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would > make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made > open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular > meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to > me. > > I of course do not withdraw the appeal. > > I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I > sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please > explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or > even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't > have 2 days ago? > > Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have > the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure > that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please > ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO > Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so > that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency > and accountability mechanisms. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_ DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=XC5VETDOsHh2D6- W5YTRqueB9blSgkSuG-27KuOy3rM&e= > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the >> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the >> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated >> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the >> GNSO Working Group Guidelines >> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- 3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg- 2Dguidelines-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_ DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=EKMDgdmplJDij8lRe37OCiPmP52jdJ HC-BmJ3KXaYKI&e=). >> That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes >> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted … >> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that >> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request >> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering >> Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this >> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January >> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that >> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working >> Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be >> invited to sit in on the call. >> >> >> >> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that >> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group >> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the >> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of >> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the >> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO >> Policy Development Processes. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as >> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we >> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. >> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a >> withdrawal of your appeal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philip and Petter >> >>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
I would like to attend the meeting if possible, please can you publish the details or send me a copy?
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
This note is to confirm that staff will be going ahead to schedule the call between you, Phil and Petter soon, although it will not be before next week. Next Thursday is certainly a possibility, so thank you for the suggestion. As highlighted previously, the call will be recorded and the ICANN Ombudsman invited to attend as an observer.
In line with the message from Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, sent to this mailing list on 24 December 2017, if other PDP Working Group members supporting George’s invocation of Section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, please let us know so that we can be sure to send you the call details.
Thanks and cheers Mary
On 1/2/18, 08:39, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I'm just following up on the emails of December 21, 2017. Is the Thursday January 4, 2018 date and 12:00 noon (Eastern time) time, corresponding to the usual IGO PDP conference call date/time acceptable? If not, I'd suggest the following week (Thursday January 11, 2018 at 12:00 noon Eastern time) as an alternative.
Please advise before the end of the business day today.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c...
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of > interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to > proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call > scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would > make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made > open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular > meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to > me. > > I of course do not withdraw the appeal. > > I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I > sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please > explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or > even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't > have 2 days ago? > > Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have > the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure > that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please > ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO > Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so > that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency > and accountability mechanisms. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the >> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the >> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated >> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the >> GNSO Working Group Guidelines >> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...). >> That section provides, in relevant part, that a “WG member that believes >> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted … >> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that >> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request >> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering >> Organization or their designated representative.” As the co-chairs of this >> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January >> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that >> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working >> Group’s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be >> invited to sit in on the call. >> >> >> >> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that >> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group >> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the >> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of >> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the >> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO >> Policy Development Processes. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as >> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we >> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. >> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a >> withdrawal of your appeal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philip and Petter >> >>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I would like to be included in the call please. Thank you Paul Keating On 1/6/18, 12:33 AM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mary,
I would like to attend the meeting if possible, please can you publish the details or send me a copy?
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George,
This note is to confirm that staff will be going ahead to schedule the call between you, Phil and Petter soon, although it will not be before next week. Next Thursday is certainly a possibility, so thank you for the suggestion. As highlighted previously, the call will be recorded and the ICANN Ombudsman invited to attend as an observer.
In line with the message from Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, sent to this mailing list on 24 December 2017, if other PDP Working Group members supporting George¹s invocation of Section 3.7 would like to attend the meeting, please let us know so that we can be sure to send you the call details.
Thanks and cheers Mary
On 1/2/18, 08:39, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I'm just following up on the emails of December 21, 2017. Is the Thursday January 4, 2018 date and 12:00 noon (Eastern time) time, corresponding to the usual IGO PDP conference call date/time acceptable? If not, I'd suggest the following week (Thursday January 11, 2018 at 12:00 noon Eastern time) as an alternative.
Please advise before the end of the business day today.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIF aQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x 6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=X C5VETDOsHh2D6-W5YTRqueB9blSgkSuG-27KuOy3rM&e=
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:08 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I received the following email off-list, but I believe it is of > interest to the entire PDP working group membership. I'm ready to > proceed on a call in early January. I believe we already had a call > scheduled at our normal time on Thursday, January 4, 2018, so it would > make sense to discuss things at that time. That call should be made > open to all interested members of this PDP, just like our regular > meetings via Adobe Connect, etc.. It's not a concern that is unique to > me. > > I of course do not withdraw the appeal. > > I find it interesting that this email was sent very shortly after I > sent my most email (which cc'd Ms. Forrest). If you have time, please > explain why you could not have sent the exact same email 2 days ago or > even yesterday? What "new information" do you have now that you didn't > have 2 days ago? > > Lastly, I believe the **entire membership** of this PDP should have > the opportunity to consult with the GNSO Council, in order to ensure > that all views are heard, not just the voices of the co-chairs. Please > ensure that all communications between the co-chairs and the GNSO > Council are also copied to the public mailing list of this IGO PDP so > that they are "on the record", in accordance with ICANN's transparency > and accountability mechanisms. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 >
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIF aQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x 6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=X C5VETDOsHh2D6-W5YTRqueB9blSgkSuG-27KuOy3rM&e= > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> This email is being sent by ICANN staff on behalf of Phil and Petter, the >> co-chairs of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group. >> >> >> >> Dear George, >> >> >> >> We note that, in your email dated 19th December 2017 and sent to the >> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Working Group mailing list, you stated >> that you were invoking the appeal process outlined in Section 3.7 of the >> GNSO Working Group Guidelines >>
(https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_ council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w 3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=_ScY_DyFMMJfUercd5VM8RPKzrDDNzVQHe3Hu2idYpI&s=EKMDg dmplJDij8lRe37OCiPmP52jdJHC-BmJ3KXaYKI&e=). >> That section provides, in relevant part, that a ³WG member that believes >> that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted >> should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that >> the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request >> an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering >> Organization or their designated representative.² As the co-chairs of this >> Working Group, we therefore invite you to do a call with us in early January >> 2018. The call will be recorded and, given the nature of the matters that >> you have raised on the mailing list concerning our handling of the Working >> Group¹s progress toward a consensus call, the ICANN Ombudsman will be >> invited to sit in on the call. >> >> >> >> Concurrently, we will be consulting the GNSO Council on the questions that >> you and other Working Group members have asked regarding Working Group >> consensus calls. As a result, we will not be conducting any meetings of the >> Working Group or launching a poll as a basis for subsequent initiation of >> the consensus call process until we have had the opportunity to consult the >> Council which, as our Chartering Organization, is the manager of all GNSO >> Policy Development Processes. >> >> >> >> Please let us know if you wish to proceed with the call with us, as >> prescribed by Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If so, we >> will ask ICANN staff to find a mutually suitable time in early January 2018. >> If you do not wish to proceed with the call, we will consider it a >> withdrawal of your appeal. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philip and Petter >> >>
_______________________________________________ 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, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Oops, the link I sent got corrupted when I pasted it into the email. The correct link is: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01-11+IGO-INGO+Access+... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:09 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi folks, (1) The correct link is: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01-11+IGO-INGO+Access+... (as I noted earlier) (2) Phil's narrative is, as has often been the case in this PDP, incorrect. As a courtesy (I did not have to send it at all), I sent a PDF containing the exact remarks I was going to make at the start of the call (I was scheduled to go first), so folks could follow along as I made my oral presentation. It's nicely formatted, and has all the links provided, and thus one need not have to rely on an imperfect transcript later on. It would have taken approximately 12 minutes for me to have gone through it orally (a minute per page). Most of the material is not new, and was taken directly from the mailing list archives. Phil pretends that he was somehow *disadvantaged* by having a complete and accurate copy of my oral presentation. He was not disadvantaged at all --- I could have and would have simply presented orally exactly what was in that document, had I not been interrupted.
From my perspective, it seems that Phil came completely unprepared to the meeting, saw that our side was fully prepared, and wanted to stall the process and buy time, so that they could get their act together. They underestimated the quality of our appeal, and wanted to retreat to reorganize. He wanted to sabotage the call, to penalize our side for being diligent and prepared.
Recall, I was prepared to discuss this in December, but their side controlled the process and timing. I was prepared to discuss it on January 4, 2018 (last week), but again, they controlled the process. I encourage everyone to actually go through the recording, and see exactly who was being reasonable. Phil would not even agree to withdraw the one-sided letter that they sent to GNSO Council (on December 21, 2017, AFTER the appeal), or in the alternative ask that it not be acted upon, to help ensure that their delaying tactics could not become a manipulation of the process that would work to their advantage. They never gave anyone notice of their December 21, 2017 letter to GNSO council either, or provided any opportunity to anyone to respond to it to counterbalance its contents. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu...
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
For the record, this charge is false and baseless -- " He wanted to sabotage the call, to penalize our side for being diligent and prepared." And anyone who knows me knows that I arrive fully prepared for any scheduled ICANN activity. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:53 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, (1) The correct link is: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01-11+IGO-INGO+Access+... (as I noted earlier) (2) Phil's narrative is, as has often been the case in this PDP, incorrect. As a courtesy (I did not have to send it at all), I sent a PDF containing the exact remarks I was going to make at the start of the call (I was scheduled to go first), so folks could follow along as I made my oral presentation. It's nicely formatted, and has all the links provided, and thus one need not have to rely on an imperfect transcript later on. It would have taken approximately 12 minutes for me to have gone through it orally (a minute per page). Most of the material is not new, and was taken directly from the mailing list archives. Phil pretends that he was somehow *disadvantaged* by having a complete and accurate copy of my oral presentation. He was not disadvantaged at all --- I could have and would have simply presented orally exactly what was in that document, had I not been interrupted. From my perspective, it seems that Phil came completely unprepared to the meeting, saw that our side was fully prepared, and wanted to stall the process and buy time, so that they could get their act together. They underestimated the quality of our appeal, and wanted to retreat to reorganize. He wanted to sabotage the call, to penalize our side for being diligent and prepared. Recall, I was prepared to discuss this in December, but their side controlled the process and timing. I was prepared to discuss it on January 4, 2018 (last week), but again, they controlled the process. I encourage everyone to actually go through the recording, and see exactly who was being reasonable. Phil would not even agree to withdraw the one-sided letter that they sent to GNSO Council (on December 21, 2017, AFTER the appeal), or in the alternative ask that it not be acted upon, to help ensure that their delaying tactics could not become a manipulation of the process that would work to their advantage. They never gave anyone notice of their December 21, 2017 letter to GNSO council either, or provided any opportunity to anyone to respond to it to counterbalance its contents. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%2 0Discussion%20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GN SO%20WG%20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1&modificationDa te=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Phil and I have received a limited time to carefully study and reply to George's comments, presented just a few minutes before the call. In this respect, it would be convenient to know if you, George, expect to also get comments/ reply to your continuous comments with accusing us Co-chairs to "sabotage" and "penalizing" the system. Or, if this is only to be seen as your own personal views directed to us, views which you do not want to be included and considered in the complaint as such? Your clarification is appreciated. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 12 januari 2018 18:52:36 +01:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>:
Hi folks,
(1) The correct link is: <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01-11+IGO-INGO+Access+...> (as I noted earlier)
(2) Phil's narrative is, as has often been the case in this PDP, incorrect. As a courtesy (I did not have to send it at all), I sent a PDF containing the exact remarks I was going to make at the start of the call (I was scheduled to go first), so folks could follow along as I made my oral presentation. It's nicely formatted, and has all the links provided, and thus one need not have to rely on an imperfect transcript later on. It would have taken approximately 12 minutes for me to have gone through it orally (a minute per page). Most of the material is not new, and was taken directly from the mailing list archives.
Phil pretends that he was somehow *disadvantaged* by having a complete and accurate copy of my oral presentation. He was not disadvantaged at all --- I could have and would have simply presented orally exactly what was in that document, had I not been interrupted.
From my perspective, it seems that Phil came completely unprepared to the meeting, saw that our side was fully prepared, and wanted to stall the process and buy time, so that they could get their act together. They underestimated the quality of our appeal, and wanted to retreat to reorganize. He wanted to sabotage the call, to penalize our side for being diligent and prepared.
Recall, I was prepared to discuss this in December, but their side controlled the process and timing. I was prepared to discuss it on January 4, 2018 (last week), but again, they controlled the process.
I encourage everyone to actually go through the recording, and see exactly who was being reasonable. Phil would not even agree to withdraw the one-sided letter that they sent to GNSO Council (on December 21, 2017, AFTER the appeal), or in the alternative ask that it not be acted upon, to help ensure that their delaying tactics could not become a manipulation of the process that would work to their advantage. They never gave anyone notice of their December 21, 2017 letter to GNSO council either, or provided any opportunity to anyone to respond to it to counterbalance its contents.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Corwin, Philip <<pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu...>
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:<gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <<gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
<https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group>
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <<icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <<icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> _______________________________________________ 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>
Petter: What you keep overlooking is that I was not obligated to give any advance notice of what I was going to say. I would have (had I not been interrupted) simply read my remarks into the record. The PDF would allow folks to follow along as I did so, and to allow for a perfect transcript. Then, it would have been your side's turn to speak (as agreed before the call took place). I had no notice of what you were going to say, but was prepared for anything. That's what preparation is all about. And then the rest of the call was set for discussion of both sides' remarks. Indeed, I got to the call 5 minutes early, and the PDF was loaded into the Adobe Connect (as Mary said it would be, in an email all parties to the call saw an hour before the call), so folks could follow along as I spoke. Then, inexplicably (before the recording started), the PDF was ***taken down*** (and never replaced with anything else) before I was set to speak (I was set to go first, so it made sense for them to be pre-loaded). That made no sense whatsoever. But, then to expect to engage in a "negotiation" about process when I'm set to speak? That derailed the entire call. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Petter Rindforth < petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Phil and I have received a limited time to carefully study and reply to George's comments, presented just a few minutes before the call.
In this respect, it would be convenient to know if you, George, expect to also get comments/ reply to your continuous comments with accusing us Co-chairs to "sabotage" and "penalizing" the system.
Or, if this is only to be seen as your own personal views directed to us, views which you do not want to be included and considered in the complaint as such?
Your clarification is appreciated.
/ Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
12 januari 2018 18:52:36 +01:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>:
Hi folks,
(1) The correct link is: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-01- 11+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+Working+Group (as I noted earlier)
(2) Phil's narrative is, as has often been the case in this PDP, incorrect. As a courtesy (I did not have to send it at all), I sent a PDF containing the exact remarks I was going to make at the start of the call (I was scheduled to go first), so folks could follow along as I made my oral presentation. It's nicely formatted, and has all the links provided, and thus one need not have to rely on an imperfect transcript later on. It would have taken approximately 12 minutes for me to have gone through it orally (a minute per page). Most of the material is not new, and was taken directly from the mailing list archives.
Phil pretends that he was somehow *disadvantaged* by having a complete and accurate copy of my oral presentation. He was not disadvantaged at all --- I could have and would have simply presented orally exactly what was in that document, had I not been interrupted.
From my perspective, it seems that Phil came completely unprepared to the meeting, saw that our side was fully prepared, and wanted to stall the process and buy time, so that they could get their act together. They underestimated the quality of our appeal, and wanted to retreat to reorganize. He wanted to sabotage the call, to penalize our side for being diligent and prepared.
Recall, I was prepared to discuss this in December, but their side controlled the process and timing. I was prepared to discuss it on January 4, 2018 (last week), but again, they controlled the process.
I encourage everyone to actually go through the recording, and see exactly who was being reasonable. Phil would not even agree to withdraw the one-sided letter that they sent to GNSO Council (on December 21, 2017, AFTER the appeal), or in the alternative ask that it not be acted upon, to help ensure that their delaying tactics could not become a manipulation of the process that would work to their advantage. They never gave anyone notice of their December 21, 2017 letter to GNSO council either, or provided any opportunity to anyone to respond to it to counterbalance its contents.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/ download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion% 20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207% 20GNSO%20WG%20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version= 1&modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&s...> Reston, VA 20190 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&s...> 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu...
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
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
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/ download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion% 20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207% 20GNSO%20WG%20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version= 1&modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________ 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 Mike, I fully documented who supported/opposed the anonymous poll on page 2 (Section D) of yesterday's PDF: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-January/001035.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180111/c89edbb... Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu...
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
_______________________________________________ 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 support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I support the use of an anonymous poll.
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM *To:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/ download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion% 20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207% 20GNSO%20WG%20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version= 1&modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________ 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 think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849> 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: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM *To:* David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> *Cc:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi David,
Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I support the use of an anonymous poll.
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM *To:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/ download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion% 20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207% 20GNSO%20WG%20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version= 1&modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________ 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 don’t support nor oppose anonymous polling, most of us have been participating in this group for a long time so everybody has a general idea on our position. This said, I concur that we are waisting time on a formality. Even though a few formally supported anonymous polling also a few formally supported it, so we don’t know how many are in favor or against this for of polling. That said, since the group is open to anybody, I don’t see what is the difference between anonymous or personal polling. I would gladly support a majority decision on this issue in order to finish the work as soon as possible. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa El 12 ene. 2018, a las 17:45, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> escribió: Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849> 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: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Novoa, I am generally in favor of polling if properly done. The only way that polling can be honest and not subject to manipulation is to require the following: 1. Full name (to confirm that the person is a member is the WG) 2. Confirm that the results are public (because there is otherwise no way to audit #1). Even then one must reach consensus as to the actual question being asked. As an attorney I am fully aware that responses can be susceptible to the language of and manner in which the question is asked. I am only interested in openness and transparency. I agree that there may be specific cases in which the participants may have legitimate reason for not publicizing their identity. However, this can also be addressed as to those people to which that situation applies. Thus far I have seen absolutely no statement of why any annonymous polling should be conducted. But enough of this. I believe it is time for the Chairs to acknowledge that this WG must move forward and absent a compelling reason supporting anonymous polling it should be performed as is the standard - in an open and transparent manner. Phil and Petter I ask that you agree that the polling be transparent and undertaken once the WG has agreed on the language of the questions to be asked. Lets move forward. Paul Keating On 1/12/18, 10:52 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Novoa, Osvaldo" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of onovoa@Antel.com.uy> wrote:
I don¹t support nor oppose anonymous polling, most of us have been participating in this group for a long time so everybody has a general idea on our position. This said, I concur that we are waisting time on a formality. Even though a few formally supported anonymous polling also a few formally supported it, so we don¹t know how many are in favor or against this for of polling. That said, since the group is open to anybody, I don¹t see what is the difference between anonymous or personal polling. I would gladly support a majority decision on this issue in order to finish the work as soon as possible. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa
El 12 ene. 2018, a las 17:45, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> escribió:
Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849>
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi David,
Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly?
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849>
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounc es@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a ³record² could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Dis cussion%20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GNSO%20WG% 20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=151576981 8000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&ent ry=gmail&source=g> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
*The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG* Agreed and we also have A draft report with basic avoidable errors An expert’s report that isn’t even relevant to the WG’s charter A (nearly?) final report that incorrectly applies the expert’s findings And a proposed recommendation for an arbitration mechanism which will probably never be used as it is limited to cases that require a quirk of process as the result of a combination of a bad judge, an incompetent lawyer and no appeal. And to get that proposed recommendation into the report? We’re waiting a week for a written rebuttal/approval of oral testimony which hasn’t been heard yet, so some who is supposed to be informed can workout how to defend a position in the absence of guidance from above once the oral reasoning is delivered. You couldn't make it up. Best regards, Paul. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 8:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed. But that is not a reason in support of anonymous polling. And "wasting time" in context of this working group is an ironic concept. The entire WG has been a tremendous waste of time to try to solve a purported problem that has never been proved to exist. And whose proponents have refused to participate in the WG. It is all the more reason NOT to have an anonymous poll as an estimation of consensus. After three years(?!), nobody should be inputting anonymous views into the process now.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM *To:* David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> *Cc:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi David,
Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I support the use of an anonymous poll.
David W. Maher
Public Interest Registry
Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
+1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849>
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM *To:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/do wnload/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discussion%20George %E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GNSO%20WG% 20guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1& modificationDate=1515769818000&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis
of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as
previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11
January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
(09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was
sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to
attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the
relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269>
_______________________________________________ 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 with you. Would you be willing to drop your request that the polling be anonymous? Or at least share with us why you think it should be? Paul Keating From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org> Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure
David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi David,
Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote:
I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 <tel:(312)%20375-4849>
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:(415)%20738-8087>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
My 2 cents.
Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution.
The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse.
What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a ³record² could be created.
The result was a continued delay of the matter.
Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner.
As said, my 2 cents.
Paul Keating
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Disc ussion%20George%E2%80%99s%20appeal%20under%20section%203%207%20GNSO%20WG%20 guidelines%20%2011%20Jan%202018.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=151576981800 0&api=v2
For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately".
What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call.
When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=g mail&source=g> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <tel:(703)%20948-4648> /Direct 571-342-7489 <tel:(571)%20342-7489> /Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs
Hi folks,
The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week.
https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group
[The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).]
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details.
Have a nice weekend!
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
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 did not request anonymous polling. It's OK so far as I am concerned. I still think the group is wasting time on this issue. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul@law.es] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:25 AM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I agree with you. Would you be willing to drop your request that the polling be anonymous? Or at least share with us why you think it should be? Paul Keating From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849> 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: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a "record" could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Just a note to express my hope that this WG will be able to amicably resolve the procedural issues forthwith so that the WG may be wrapped up. Also, I wish to reiterate my view that the WG has identified a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of the UDRP, namely how to maintain registrant’s long-standing right of access to the court system, and accordingly there are broader implications which prevent us from addressing some IGO concerns in a vacuum. This fundamental issue is beyond the scope of this WG and is an issue for the RPM WG, and as such as previously proposed, this matter should be deferred to the RPM WG which has the mandate to handle issues which affect registrants and which may require revisions to the UDRP. *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *David W. Maher *Sent:* January-14-18 3:16 PM *To:* Paul Keating; Mike Rodenbaugh *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I did not request anonymous polling. It’s OK so far as I am concerned. I still think the group is wasting time on this issue. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 *From:* Paul Keating [mailto:Paul@law.es <Paul@law.es>] *Sent:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:25 AM *To:* David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I agree with you. Would you be willing to drop your request that the polling be anonymous? Or at least share with us why you think it should be? Paul Keating *From: *"David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org> *Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM *To: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Cc: *Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com <mike@rodenbaugh.com>] *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM *To:* David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> *Cc:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 <(312)%20375-4849> *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM *To:* Paul Keating <paul@law.es> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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
Zak: Thanks for your input. Speaking personally, I believe that the issue of a registrant’s access to judicial appeal is an appropriate topic for the RPM Review WG to consider addressing. However, I continue to believe that it is not relevant to the remaining policy issue we are considering, which deals with a hypothetical in which a registrant has undertaken a judicial appeal and the IGO has subsequently and successfully asserted immunity from the authority of that court. I also believe that after three and a half years work it would be an abrogation of this WG’s responsibility to attempt to kick the IGO immunity issue to a separate WG that already has a more than full plate of Charter responsibilities. Whatever we decide, I hope we can recommend something on that central issue. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:31 PM To: Maher, David <dmaher@pir.org>; Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Just a note to express my hope that this WG will be able to amicably resolve the procedural issues forthwith so that the WG may be wrapped up. Also, I wish to reiterate my view that the WG has identified a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of the UDRP, namely how to maintain registrant’s long-standing right of access to the court system, and accordingly there are broader implications which prevent us from addressing some IGO concerns in a vacuum. This fundamental issue is beyond the scope of this WG and is an issue for the RPM WG, and as such as previously proposed, this matter should be deferred to the RPM WG which has the mandate to handle issues which affect registrants and which may require revisions to the UDRP. From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: January-14-18 3:16 PM To: Paul Keating; Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I did not request anonymous polling. It’s OK so far as I am concerned. I still think the group is wasting time on this issue. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul@law.es] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:25 AM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I agree with you. Would you be willing to drop your request that the polling be anonymous? Or at least share with us why you think it should be? Paul Keating From: "David W. Maher" <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:22 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs I think the group is wasting time arguing about procedure David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:13 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi David, Always good to hear from you. Can you explain why, briefly? Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>> wrote: I support the use of an anonymous poll. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849<tel:(312)%20375-4849> 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: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:40 PM To: Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Agreed this is ridiculous. Does anyone except Petter and Phil support an anonymous poll of this WG? I don't recall seeing any other support for it, so I am flabbergasted by their extraordinary efforts to force one on the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087<tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es<mailto:paul@law.es>> wrote: My 2 cents. Respectfully, this bickering must stop and we need to focus on resolution. The underlying dispute was the objection to the use of an anonymous poll. The main objection (at least from my understanding) was the anonymous part which leads to inaccuracies and potential abuse. What was supposed to be a constructive attempt to resolve the dispute informally became embroiled in procedural objections. Instead of making an effort to resolve conflict by listening to the objections involved in the appeal, the substantive discussion was aborted so a “record” could be created. The result was a continued delay of the matter. Of course this also means that the WG CONTINUES TO BE STALLED. Why the process must be stalled because of the insistence to use anonymous polling is rather confusing to me. It would appear that time is better spent actually moving forward and seeking to determine consensus in an open and transparent manner. As said, my 2 cents. Paul Keating Sent from my iPad On 12 Jan 2018, at 18:17, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: The call transcript can be found at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79429635/transcript%20Discu... For the record, I disagree with George's characterization that he was "interrupted immediately". What occurred was that George submitted a 12-page document with 28 footnotes that arrived by email just 76 minutes prior to the start of the call. I had no opportunity to read much less consider its content prior to the call. When the call commenced I asked for mutual agreement that, given the length of the document and the fact that it arrived without advance notice, the co-chairs be accorded the courtesy of being given a few days after conclusion of the call to fully consider its contents and to respond in writing if they wished to do so. I expected this request to be noncontroversial but it proved otherwise. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D+Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gma...> Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Invitation to a call with the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Working Group co-chairs Hi folks, The archive of yesterday's call, to appeal the use of anonymous polling within this working group has been posted by ICANN. Notice how my presentation was interrupted immediately, and then we got completely bogged down by process issues. Another call is scheduled for next week. https://community.icann.org/display/...+Working+Group [The best link to use is the "AC Recording" (shows the chatroom, and audio, as well as ability to jump back/forth using the controls at the bottom).] Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, In the spirit of transparency, attached is documentation for the basis of the Section 3.7 appeal (meeting today at noon Eastern time, as previously noted), for the benefit of all members of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Just confirming receipt of the invitation to a call on Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 17:00 UTC for 60 minutes. (09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London GMT, 18:00 Paris CET) that I was sent off-list. If others interested in the Section 3.7 appeal want to attend, presumably they can contact ICANN Staff (Mary, etc.) for the relevant passcode/invite and call-in details. Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:(416)%20588-0269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
participants (10)
-
Corwin, Philip -
David W. Maher -
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Zak Muscovitch