George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Hi folks, As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly: - This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel. - Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case. - The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result. Best, Martin On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members, Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly: - This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel. - Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case. - The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result. Best, Martin On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote: Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com] On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines: "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." I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily. Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR... That form clearly says: " The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed." And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html "Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes: * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings." In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email) The very last sentence of their response says: "Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised." The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal. The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live. Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
P.S. I'll add another point. On page 1 of the letter from the co-chairs, they write: ".....your recent input regarding the period in which individual Trademark Claims and Sunrise proposals could be submitted ****resulted in a decision***** to delay the opening of that period while extending its length." (emphasis added) Notice the co-chairs aren't claiming it "resulted in a revised PROPOSED PROCESS" --- they openly describe it as a *decided* process (a "decision"), by their own words and description (and obviously by the actions in setting up the forms, as per the prior email). They're not acting as if it's a "proposal" -- they're acting as if it's a decided process. They made a "decision" and Section 3.7 allows an appeal. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 8:11 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
"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."
I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR...
That form clearly says:
" The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
"Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
* Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
The very last sentence of their response says:
"Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live.
Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Dear WG members: In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs-- Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. -- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7. That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted. It was agreed on that call that I would write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group Hi folks, As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines: "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." I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily. Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR... That form clearly says: " The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed." And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html "Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes: * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings." In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email) The very last sentence of their response says: "Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised." The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal. The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live. Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Phil, Funny that I wasn't invited to that conference call. Why don't you post the recording of that call, Phil, in the interests of transparency? Let me make this very simple --- what is the current active and binding work plan that this PDP is operating under? That was such a simple question, you should be able to provide a link to it immediately, without delay. The answer to that question will expose the contradictions in the letter from the co-chairs that you claim was approved by seven individuals. Possibility #1: the January 29 so-called "proposed process" is the current and binding work plan. If that is the case, then that's an admission that a "decided process" exists, and I have standing to appeal it under section 3.7. Possibility #2: some other work plan is in effect (identify it). Then, if this is the situation, then that means ICANN staff and the co-chairs "went rogue" in posting those forms for the additional data and individual work plans, with their own purported deadlines with consequences if the deadlines were not met. I can certainly challenge that too, under Section 3.7. There are really only 2 possibilities --- which one is it, Phil? Or are you going to ignore the question, just like ICANN Staff did when I asked them to produce all the documents they compiled that they were supposed to be working on since August 2017? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:30 AM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear WG members:
In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs--
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated.
-- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7.
That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted.
It was agreed on that call that I would write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Hi folks,
As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
"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."
I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR...
That form clearly says:
" The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
"Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
* Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
The very last sentence of their response says:
"Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live.
Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hey Phil, We missed you at the sub team calls yesterday. I must be doing something right, as ICANN staff paid me the highest compliment, in a misdirected chat message: "Berry Cobb: I'm really curious why you VRSN guys haven't hired up Kirikos yet. ;-) " (screen shots attached) LOL! I'm going to frame that. If Phil is hiding out in the Verisign bunker, perhaps one of his colleagues will print that, and bring it over to him. There's an excellent scene in the film "Gladiator": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfN_DEBrUVI "MAXIMUS: You were a gladiator? PROXIMO: Yes, I was PROXIMO: I wasn't the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd, win your freedom. MAXIMUS: I will win the crowd. I will give them something they have never seen before." At yesterday's calls, the crowd was won over. As I've previously noted, most of the grueling work of the sub teams has been done by Kristine, Kathy, Griffin and myself. Some relevant excerpts from the chat transcript of yesterday's sunrise sub team call: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-February/000203.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190207/c3d4e9c... "Griffin Barnett:I support the suggestion to push back deadlines as needed based on reasonable workloads Kristine Dorrain:+1 Mitch Stoltz:+1 … Griffin Barnett:I take Brian's point, but when even the most active sub-team and WG volunteers sare saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted … Kristine Dorrain:I suggest that the c0-chairs propose a reasonable goal and we see that as that...a goal. Griffin Barnett:Indeed, a goal, not necessarily a deadline" I think 24 hours (time since my prior post) was more than enough time for the co-chairs to have identified the current active and binding work plan. A competent co-chair should be able to immediately identify the work plan that we are operating under. You've painted yourselves into a corner, and a non-response is interpreted adversely against you. If we were on a ship, and asked crew members where we were heading, and what time we were set to arrive, they'd know that basic knowledge. Certainly the captain would know that, and be able to answer that basic question. What we have is a leadership crisis, of their own making, when the working group members don't know what the current work plan is, or where we have a situation that the co-chairs are trying to disavow what they already posted. Own it. Take responsibility for it, and be held accountable. If you're not going to take responsibility, it means the forms that were posted with deadlines and consequences (one deadline is tomorrow, i.e. Friday) are illegitimate, with folks "going rogue" to have posted them. Say so. Change the deadlines to "TBD" or take them down, to relieve the immediate deadline pressure. Let me throw you a lifeline, Phil. Here's a link to your resignation letter as co-chair in the IGO PDP, which you can use as a template for remedy (h) in the Section 3.7 appeal: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001186.html Of course, you'll have to modify that letter somewhat. I'd suggest a desire to "spend more time with the family" as that always works. Just like in the RPM PDP, I had invoked a section 3.7 appeal, one you were not pleased by, and you tried to defend the indefensible. You put up a brave front, right until the very end, e.g. 2 days prior to the above resignation, you wrote: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001165.html trying to wiggle out of the crisis. But, eventually you had to accept the facts, which were not on your side. We in that PDP were able to coalesce around a consensus, despite your opposition, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001169.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... (later in June) I gave the crowd something they had never seen before in that PDP, planted the seed that they can effectively counter "decisions" of the chairs, that there really is a "bottom up" process, that they don't have to be afraid to voice their concerns, and the results spoke for themselves -- all recommendations reached consensus, a great success. I empowered the members of the PDP. (of course, others are still trying to undermine that successful outcome, as that final report is stuck at the GNSO Council, which has been sitting on it since July 2018, but that's another story; hopefully this RPM PDP section 3.7 appeal will finally demonstrate to the powers that be the folly of those kinds of arguments, how out of touch the co-chairs can be, now that they've witnessed the lengths taken to avoid properly dealing with the work plan in this PDP). As Griffin rightly said "when even the most active sub-team and WG active sub-team and WG volunteers are saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted". All the remedies sought in the Section 3.7 appeal were carefully thought out, and reasonable. So, here's a template for your response: ---- start of response ------------ After further consideration, the co-chairs have agreed to accept and adopt all 9 of the remedies sought by Mr. Kirikos in his section 3.7 appeal. With immediate effect, the current deadlines for the submission of additional data and individual proposals have been lifted, to be determined later. We will work with the GNSO Council leadership to transition to a new independent and professional facilitator, but in the meantime the work of the two sub teams will continue uninterrupted. ---- end of response ------------ Failing that, I ask that Keith, Pam and Rafik arrange a call with me before tomorrow (Friday's) deadline for the submission of additional data (i.e. remedy (b) in the Section 3.7 appeal was on that issue, and that's the most immediate deadline that would affect our work) to challenge that work plan decision. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:52 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Phil,
Funny that I wasn't invited to that conference call. Why don't you post the recording of that call, Phil, in the interests of transparency?
Let me make this very simple --- what is the current active and binding work plan that this PDP is operating under?
That was such a simple question, you should be able to provide a link to it immediately, without delay. The answer to that question will expose the contradictions in the letter from the co-chairs that you claim was approved by seven individuals.
Possibility #1: the January 29 so-called "proposed process" is the current and binding work plan. If that is the case, then that's an admission that a "decided process" exists, and I have standing to appeal it under section 3.7.
Possibility #2: some other work plan is in effect (identify it). Then, if this is the situation, then that means ICANN staff and the co-chairs "went rogue" in posting those forms for the additional data and individual work plans, with their own purported deadlines with consequences if the deadlines were not met. I can certainly challenge that too, under Section 3.7.
There are really only 2 possibilities --- which one is it, Phil? Or are you going to ignore the question, just like ICANN Staff did when I asked them to produce all the documents they compiled that they were supposed to be working on since August 2017?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:30 AM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear WG members:
In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs--
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated.
-- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7.
That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted.
It was agreed on that call that I would write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Hi folks,
As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
"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."
I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR...
That form clearly says:
" The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
"Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
* Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
The very last sentence of their response says:
"Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live.
Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi folks, I see that ICANN staff posted an update to the RPM PDP work plan yesterday: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-February/003643.html on behalf of the working group co-chairs, and that they've dropped the prior pretense (attempting to avoid the Section 3.7 appeal) that the work plan isn't a "decided process." Thus, I reiterate the Section 3.7 appeal, for all the reasons previously expressed. The superficial changes that the co-chairs made to the work plan continue to ignore the substance of the Section 3.7 appeal: 1. Issues of extremely high workload continue to exist. Despite previous communications on this topic, the workload for this week on sub teams actually *increased*, as I pointed out on the sub team mailing lists: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-February/000209.html The revised work plan continues to perpetuate the fantasy that the sub team analysis of previously collected data will be complete before March, despite only a handful of folks making any efforts to fill out the Google Docs (i.e. the heart of the work). As of the time of this email, only 1 person (David McAuley) has even attempted to make a submission with regards to this week's "homework" (due tomorrow), with no one else making any submissions (including myself, for the reasons posted in the above link). 2. The deadline for submission of additional data was moved by an insubstantial 5 days (just 2 days from now, February 13). This despite ICANN staff not providing any list of data sources that they had an opportunity to collect since August 2017! (I asked on this mailing list, repeatedly; presumably, they just "gave up" after doing nothing, and want to completely shift the burden to individual WG members to do in a short time what they couldn't or wouldn't do in 18 months) Furthermore, that data, according to their own optimistic timeline, wouldn't even be reviewed until February 27th, so it would have made more sense (by their own timeline) to make the deadline February 22. Instead, we have an "early" deadline which has the effect of suppressing input. Of course, with a realistic timeline, it would be mid-March (given point #1 above). 3. In addition, the barriers for input of additional data remain (this was point #10 of the Section 3.7 appeal). Indeed, if you look at the actual Google Form: https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 it doesn't even contain a link to prior submissions of others, to avoid duplication of work! Despite the form saying: "All submissions will be displayed publicly via an automatically-generated Google Spreadsheet" no such public display exists at present. We know this technology exists (e.g. in the EPDP on WHOIS comment period, folks could see the input from others in a Google Spreadsheet, to get a sense of what was already submitted, before submitting their own comments). By omission, this has the effect of continuing to waste resources and increase the barriers/burden for those submitting additional data. Why is this important? The Google Form clearly states: "Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed." Anyone who attended last week's sunrise sub team call would have observed a quite heated exchange between Kathy and Greg on the topic of data, see: https://participate.icann.org/p6upnchfpvy/ starting at around 24:00. The key sources of data (that would allow comparison with past sunrises, and thus allow on to show that sunrise registrations were substantially lower than in the past) were posted (by myself) in a past thread from August 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html where various older sunrise stats were posted. Did ICANN staff compile that information? Nope! In order to be "in order", and to "be discussed", someone's going to have to submit all these, and also cross-reference them across the relevant charter questions. As I've argued already, that tedious tasks takes substantial time, much more than has been allocated, which means that these (and other) data sources are effectively being suppressed. 4. The new deadline for individual proposals completely missed the point (argued in point #11 of the Section 3.7 appeal) that individual WG member proposals are a *response* to gaps/shortcomings in the sub team proposals. Thus, the only time it makes sense to submit individual WG member proposals is *after* the sub team proposals are completed. The new timeline has the sub teams completing their preliminary recommendations on April 3, but the deadline for submission of individual proposals continues to be *before* that date, rather than *after* that date. 5. None of the other points I made in the Section 3.7 appeal with regards to, for example, preventing capture, expectations of reasonable workload, improved operational methods, and replacement of the co-chairs with a professional facilitator, have been addressed. In conclusion, simply fiddling with the dates is just a superficial response to the Section 3.7 appeal, and hardly addresses the substance of it. Section 3.7 obliges the co-chairs to "first discuss the circumstances" with me. They've not done so, so I reiterate the prior request to "discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization [i.e. Keith Drazek] or their designated representative." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:13 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Phil,
We missed you at the sub team calls yesterday. I must be doing something right, as ICANN staff paid me the highest compliment, in a misdirected chat message:
"Berry Cobb: I'm really curious why you VRSN guys haven't hired up Kirikos yet. ;-) " (screen shots attached)
LOL! I'm going to frame that. If Phil is hiding out in the Verisign bunker, perhaps one of his colleagues will print that, and bring it over to him.
There's an excellent scene in the film "Gladiator":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfN_DEBrUVI
"MAXIMUS: You were a gladiator? PROXIMO: Yes, I was PROXIMO: I wasn't the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd, win your freedom. MAXIMUS: I will win the crowd. I will give them something they have never seen before."
At yesterday's calls, the crowd was won over. As I've previously noted, most of the grueling work of the sub teams has been done by Kristine, Kathy, Griffin and myself. Some relevant excerpts from the chat transcript of yesterday's sunrise sub team call:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-February/000203.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190207/c3d4e9c...
"Griffin Barnett:I support the suggestion to push back deadlines as needed based on reasonable workloads Kristine Dorrain:+1 Mitch Stoltz:+1 … Griffin Barnett:I take Brian's point, but when even the most active sub-team and WG volunteers sare saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted … Kristine Dorrain:I suggest that the c0-chairs propose a reasonable goal and we see that as that...a goal. Griffin Barnett:Indeed, a goal, not necessarily a deadline"
I think 24 hours (time since my prior post) was more than enough time for the co-chairs to have identified the current active and binding work plan. A competent co-chair should be able to immediately identify the work plan that we are operating under. You've painted yourselves into a corner, and a non-response is interpreted adversely against you. If we were on a ship, and asked crew members where we were heading, and what time we were set to arrive, they'd know that basic knowledge. Certainly the captain would know that, and be able to answer that basic question.
What we have is a leadership crisis, of their own making, when the working group members don't know what the current work plan is, or where we have a situation that the co-chairs are trying to disavow what they already posted. Own it. Take responsibility for it, and be held accountable. If you're not going to take responsibility, it means the forms that were posted with deadlines and consequences (one deadline is tomorrow, i.e. Friday) are illegitimate, with folks "going rogue" to have posted them. Say so. Change the deadlines to "TBD" or take them down, to relieve the immediate deadline pressure.
Let me throw you a lifeline, Phil. Here's a link to your resignation letter as co-chair in the IGO PDP, which you can use as a template for remedy (h) in the Section 3.7 appeal:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001186.html
Of course, you'll have to modify that letter somewhat. I'd suggest a desire to "spend more time with the family" as that always works.
Just like in the RPM PDP, I had invoked a section 3.7 appeal, one you were not pleased by, and you tried to defend the indefensible. You put up a brave front, right until the very end, e.g. 2 days prior to the above resignation, you wrote:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001165.html
trying to wiggle out of the crisis. But, eventually you had to accept the facts, which were not on your side. We in that PDP were able to coalesce around a consensus, despite your opposition, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001169.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... (later in June)
I gave the crowd something they had never seen before in that PDP, planted the seed that they can effectively counter "decisions" of the chairs, that there really is a "bottom up" process, that they don't have to be afraid to voice their concerns, and the results spoke for themselves -- all recommendations reached consensus, a great success. I empowered the members of the PDP. (of course, others are still trying to undermine that successful outcome, as that final report is stuck at the GNSO Council, which has been sitting on it since July 2018, but that's another story; hopefully this RPM PDP section 3.7 appeal will finally demonstrate to the powers that be the folly of those kinds of arguments, how out of touch the co-chairs can be, now that they've witnessed the lengths taken to avoid properly dealing with the work plan in this PDP).
As Griffin rightly said "when even the most active sub-team and WG active sub-team and WG volunteers are saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted". All the remedies sought in the Section 3.7 appeal were carefully thought out, and reasonable.
So, here's a template for your response:
---- start of response ------------ After further consideration, the co-chairs have agreed to accept and adopt all 9 of the remedies sought by Mr. Kirikos in his section 3.7 appeal. With immediate effect, the current deadlines for the submission of additional data and individual proposals have been lifted, to be determined later. We will work with the GNSO Council leadership to transition to a new independent and professional facilitator, but in the meantime the work of the two sub teams will continue uninterrupted. ---- end of response ------------
Failing that, I ask that Keith, Pam and Rafik arrange a call with me before tomorrow (Friday's) deadline for the submission of additional data (i.e. remedy (b) in the Section 3.7 appeal was on that issue, and that's the most immediate deadline that would affect our work) to challenge that work plan decision.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:52 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Phil,
Funny that I wasn't invited to that conference call. Why don't you post the recording of that call, Phil, in the interests of transparency?
Let me make this very simple --- what is the current active and binding work plan that this PDP is operating under?
That was such a simple question, you should be able to provide a link to it immediately, without delay. The answer to that question will expose the contradictions in the letter from the co-chairs that you claim was approved by seven individuals.
Possibility #1: the January 29 so-called "proposed process" is the current and binding work plan. If that is the case, then that's an admission that a "decided process" exists, and I have standing to appeal it under section 3.7.
Possibility #2: some other work plan is in effect (identify it). Then, if this is the situation, then that means ICANN staff and the co-chairs "went rogue" in posting those forms for the additional data and individual work plans, with their own purported deadlines with consequences if the deadlines were not met. I can certainly challenge that too, under Section 3.7.
There are really only 2 possibilities --- which one is it, Phil? Or are you going to ignore the question, just like ICANN Staff did when I asked them to produce all the documents they compiled that they were supposed to be working on since August 2017?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:30 AM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear WG members:
In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs--
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated.
-- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7.
That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted.
It was agreed on that call that I would write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Hi folks,
As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
"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."
I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR...
That form clearly says:
" The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
"Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
* Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
The very last sentence of their response says:
"Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live.
Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
P.S. I see now that the Additional Data already submitted is visible at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102145818 All other concerns remain, though. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:23 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I see that ICANN staff posted an update to the RPM PDP work plan yesterday:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-February/003643.html
on behalf of the working group co-chairs, and that they've dropped the prior pretense (attempting to avoid the Section 3.7 appeal) that the work plan isn't a "decided process." Thus, I reiterate the Section 3.7 appeal, for all the reasons previously expressed.
The superficial changes that the co-chairs made to the work plan continue to ignore the substance of the Section 3.7 appeal:
1. Issues of extremely high workload continue to exist. Despite previous communications on this topic, the workload for this week on sub teams actually *increased*, as I pointed out on the sub team mailing lists:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-February/000209.html
The revised work plan continues to perpetuate the fantasy that the sub team analysis of previously collected data will be complete before March, despite only a handful of folks making any efforts to fill out the Google Docs (i.e. the heart of the work). As of the time of this email, only 1 person (David McAuley) has even attempted to make a submission with regards to this week's "homework" (due tomorrow), with no one else making any submissions (including myself, for the reasons posted in the above link).
2. The deadline for submission of additional data was moved by an insubstantial 5 days (just 2 days from now, February 13). This despite ICANN staff not providing any list of data sources that they had an opportunity to collect since August 2017! (I asked on this mailing list, repeatedly; presumably, they just "gave up" after doing nothing, and want to completely shift the burden to individual WG members to do in a short time what they couldn't or wouldn't do in 18 months) Furthermore, that data, according to their own optimistic timeline, wouldn't even be reviewed until February 27th, so it would have made more sense (by their own timeline) to make the deadline February 22. Instead, we have an "early" deadline which has the effect of suppressing input. Of course, with a realistic timeline, it would be mid-March (given point #1 above).
3. In addition, the barriers for input of additional data remain (this was point #10 of the Section 3.7 appeal). Indeed, if you look at the actual Google Form:
https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3
it doesn't even contain a link to prior submissions of others, to avoid duplication of work! Despite the form saying:
"All submissions will be displayed publicly via an automatically-generated Google Spreadsheet"
no such public display exists at present. We know this technology exists (e.g. in the EPDP on WHOIS comment period, folks could see the input from others in a Google Spreadsheet, to get a sense of what was already submitted, before submitting their own comments). By omission, this has the effect of continuing to waste resources and increase the barriers/burden for those submitting additional data.
Why is this important? The Google Form clearly states:
"Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
Anyone who attended last week's sunrise sub team call would have observed a quite heated exchange between Kathy and Greg on the topic of data, see:
https://participate.icann.org/p6upnchfpvy/
starting at around 24:00. The key sources of data (that would allow comparison with past sunrises, and thus allow on to show that sunrise registrations were substantially lower than in the past) were posted (by myself) in a past thread from August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html
where various older sunrise stats were posted. Did ICANN staff compile that information? Nope! In order to be "in order", and to "be discussed", someone's going to have to submit all these, and also cross-reference them across the relevant charter questions. As I've argued already, that tedious tasks takes substantial time, much more than has been allocated, which means that these (and other) data sources are effectively being suppressed.
4. The new deadline for individual proposals completely missed the point (argued in point #11 of the Section 3.7 appeal) that individual WG member proposals are a *response* to gaps/shortcomings in the sub team proposals. Thus, the only time it makes sense to submit individual WG member proposals is *after* the sub team proposals are completed. The new timeline has the sub teams completing their preliminary recommendations on April 3, but the deadline for submission of individual proposals continues to be *before* that date, rather than *after* that date.
5. None of the other points I made in the Section 3.7 appeal with regards to, for example, preventing capture, expectations of reasonable workload, improved operational methods, and replacement of the co-chairs with a professional facilitator, have been addressed.
In conclusion, simply fiddling with the dates is just a superficial response to the Section 3.7 appeal, and hardly addresses the substance of it. Section 3.7 obliges the co-chairs to "first discuss the circumstances" with me. They've not done so, so I reiterate the prior request to "discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization [i.e. Keith Drazek] or their designated representative."
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 2:13 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Phil,
We missed you at the sub team calls yesterday. I must be doing something right, as ICANN staff paid me the highest compliment, in a misdirected chat message:
"Berry Cobb: I'm really curious why you VRSN guys haven't hired up Kirikos yet. ;-) " (screen shots attached)
LOL! I'm going to frame that. If Phil is hiding out in the Verisign bunker, perhaps one of his colleagues will print that, and bring it over to him.
There's an excellent scene in the film "Gladiator":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfN_DEBrUVI
"MAXIMUS: You were a gladiator? PROXIMO: Yes, I was PROXIMO: I wasn't the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd, win your freedom. MAXIMUS: I will win the crowd. I will give them something they have never seen before."
At yesterday's calls, the crowd was won over. As I've previously noted, most of the grueling work of the sub teams has been done by Kristine, Kathy, Griffin and myself. Some relevant excerpts from the chat transcript of yesterday's sunrise sub team call:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-February/000203.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190207/c3d4e9c...
"Griffin Barnett:I support the suggestion to push back deadlines as needed based on reasonable workloads Kristine Dorrain:+1 Mitch Stoltz:+1 … Griffin Barnett:I take Brian's point, but when even the most active sub-team and WG volunteers sare saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted … Kristine Dorrain:I suggest that the c0-chairs propose a reasonable goal and we see that as that...a goal. Griffin Barnett:Indeed, a goal, not necessarily a deadline"
I think 24 hours (time since my prior post) was more than enough time for the co-chairs to have identified the current active and binding work plan. A competent co-chair should be able to immediately identify the work plan that we are operating under. You've painted yourselves into a corner, and a non-response is interpreted adversely against you. If we were on a ship, and asked crew members where we were heading, and what time we were set to arrive, they'd know that basic knowledge. Certainly the captain would know that, and be able to answer that basic question.
What we have is a leadership crisis, of their own making, when the working group members don't know what the current work plan is, or where we have a situation that the co-chairs are trying to disavow what they already posted. Own it. Take responsibility for it, and be held accountable. If you're not going to take responsibility, it means the forms that were posted with deadlines and consequences (one deadline is tomorrow, i.e. Friday) are illegitimate, with folks "going rogue" to have posted them. Say so. Change the deadlines to "TBD" or take them down, to relieve the immediate deadline pressure.
Let me throw you a lifeline, Phil. Here's a link to your resignation letter as co-chair in the IGO PDP, which you can use as a template for remedy (h) in the Section 3.7 appeal:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001186.html
Of course, you'll have to modify that letter somewhat. I'd suggest a desire to "spend more time with the family" as that always works.
Just like in the RPM PDP, I had invoked a section 3.7 appeal, one you were not pleased by, and you tried to defend the indefensible. You put up a brave front, right until the very end, e.g. 2 days prior to the above resignation, you wrote:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001165.html
trying to wiggle out of the crisis. But, eventually you had to accept the facts, which were not on your side. We in that PDP were able to coalesce around a consensus, despite your opposition, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001169.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... (later in June)
I gave the crowd something they had never seen before in that PDP, planted the seed that they can effectively counter "decisions" of the chairs, that there really is a "bottom up" process, that they don't have to be afraid to voice their concerns, and the results spoke for themselves -- all recommendations reached consensus, a great success. I empowered the members of the PDP. (of course, others are still trying to undermine that successful outcome, as that final report is stuck at the GNSO Council, which has been sitting on it since July 2018, but that's another story; hopefully this RPM PDP section 3.7 appeal will finally demonstrate to the powers that be the folly of those kinds of arguments, how out of touch the co-chairs can be, now that they've witnessed the lengths taken to avoid properly dealing with the work plan in this PDP).
As Griffin rightly said "when even the most active sub-team and WG active sub-team and WG volunteers are saying the workload each week is unreasonable, that needs to be accepted". All the remedies sought in the Section 3.7 appeal were carefully thought out, and reasonable.
So, here's a template for your response:
---- start of response ------------ After further consideration, the co-chairs have agreed to accept and adopt all 9 of the remedies sought by Mr. Kirikos in his section 3.7 appeal. With immediate effect, the current deadlines for the submission of additional data and individual proposals have been lifted, to be determined later. We will work with the GNSO Council leadership to transition to a new independent and professional facilitator, but in the meantime the work of the two sub teams will continue uninterrupted. ---- end of response ------------
Failing that, I ask that Keith, Pam and Rafik arrange a call with me before tomorrow (Friday's) deadline for the submission of additional data (i.e. remedy (b) in the Section 3.7 appeal was on that issue, and that's the most immediate deadline that would affect our work) to challenge that work plan decision.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:52 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Phil,
Funny that I wasn't invited to that conference call. Why don't you post the recording of that call, Phil, in the interests of transparency?
Let me make this very simple --- what is the current active and binding work plan that this PDP is operating under?
That was such a simple question, you should be able to provide a link to it immediately, without delay. The answer to that question will expose the contradictions in the letter from the co-chairs that you claim was approved by seven individuals.
Possibility #1: the January 29 so-called "proposed process" is the current and binding work plan. If that is the case, then that's an admission that a "decided process" exists, and I have standing to appeal it under section 3.7.
Possibility #2: some other work plan is in effect (identify it). Then, if this is the situation, then that means ICANN staff and the co-chairs "went rogue" in posting those forms for the additional data and individual work plans, with their own purported deadlines with consequences if the deadlines were not met. I can certainly challenge that too, under Section 3.7.
There are really only 2 possibilities --- which one is it, Phil? Or are you going to ignore the question, just like ICANN Staff did when I asked them to produce all the documents they compiled that they were supposed to be working on since August 2017?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:30 AM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Dear WG members:
In regard to Mr. Kirikos' reference to my role in drafting the response of the WG co-chairs--
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated.
-- I would like to clarify that the response sent yesterday by the co-chairs to Mr. Kirikos represents the unanimous view of the full WG co-chairs and the sub-team co-chairs that his filing constitutes a "submission as a request for a more active dialogue regarding the proposed workplan, rather than as a document substantiating and providing an adequate basis for an actual “3.7 Appeal”. A discussion of the proposed workplan really needs to involve the full WG, rather than an off-line dialogue between you and the Co-Chairs." The message was only signed by the three WG co-chairs because of the role assigned to us by Section 3.7.
That view was reached during a conference call of more than one hour duration held yesterday between all three WG co-chairs, the four sub-team co-chairs, and ICANN policy support staff. The fact that we allocated so much time on such short notice evidences the seriousness with which we regarded his submission; it was not ignored or discounted.
It was agreed on that call that I would write the first draft of a statement reflecting the agreement we had reached. Additional substantial edits were made by both WG and sub team co-chairs, and the final text was reviewed and approved by all seven individuals. So any implication that the response represents the particular view of any one of those WG leaders would be incorrect.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:12 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> Cc: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Hi folks,
As per section 3.7 of the Working Group Guidelines:
"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."
I hereby make that request to discuss the situation with the Chair of the GNSO (Keith Drazek), or his designated representative, as the matter was not resolved satisfactorily.
Despite what the co-chairs wrote (the metadata of the PDF shows the authorship to be via Phil Corwin), the section 3.7 appeal was properly formulated. While the co-chairs pretend that it's merely a "Proposed Process", it's obviously far more than that. In the very same email it was described as a "Proposed Process", a Google Form was posted, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQ1kqNQ060OIqmLfxJefS8RM_5cbBsxPcR...
That form clearly says:
" The final date for submission of member proposals is COB on Friday, 08 February 2019. Any submission received after that date will not be in order and will not be discussed."
And the email also deleted the January 30, 2019 full WG meeting. Again, we didn't have a January 30 meeting.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
"Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
* Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings."
In other words, they've gone ahead and *implemented* their so-called "proposal", superseding and overriding any prior work plan. The January 30 full WG meeting *was* deleted (never happened), conveniently preventing real-time discussion of their so-called "proposal". Another form for individual proposals *was* created on January 30 (albeit posted on January 31):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003620.html
i.e. at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims (delete the extra period at the end of the link in Ariel's email)
The very last sentence of their response says:
"Therefore the WG will continue its work as scheduled and ****under the current workplan/timeline***** until such time as it is revised."
The co-chairs ***already*** revised it. The current work plan that we're operating under is obviously the one they posted on January 29, and that's the one I'm appealing as part of the Section 3.7 appeal.
The co-chairs would have had much more credibility had they gone ahead and taken down those forms for the submission of additional data and individual proposals. I've attached PDF printouts (in a ZIP file) showing they are still live.
Since the co-chairs refuse to resolve the issues satisfactorily, I await the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Drazek or his designated representative.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 6:58 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and RPM PDP Working Group members,
Please see the attached response from the RPM PDP Working Group Co-Chairs.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 11:16 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>, Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, "kdrazek@verisign.com" <kdrazek@verisign.com> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] George Kirikos Section 3.7 appeal in RPM PDP working group
Some procedure thoughts and quick notes on the fly:
- This appeal doesn't suspended the regular work of the wg, it continues in parallel.
- Before going to the Chairs of the Council it has to go through the WG chairs. One just cannot skip the process unilaterally considering it pre done. I might even ask myself if this has to go to the chartering group chairs or their liason, since is only sharing information and the appeal process talks about a designated representative. That would be Paul McGrady if the WG chairs don't solve the concern. And that's it, in any case.
- The appeal process only constitutes the right to be heard, but nothing has to be done unless the authority, chairs or chartering chairs, decided to do so according to their own rules. After that, the member appealing has reached it's end with the matter, regardless of their satisfaction with the result.
Best,
Martin
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 22:33 George Kirikos <icann@leap.com wrote:
Typo, I of course meant to write "NOT to obstruct our work".
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:30 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
As previously discussed, attached is the Section 3.7 appeal brought under the working group guidelines. As mentioned on the sub teams list, this is meant to be constructive, to to obstruct our work, but to call to the attention of "the powers that be" the realities on the ground that they appear to not be aware of or are ignoring.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ [leap.com]
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (4)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Julie Hedlund -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent