Note to Mr. Kirikos Regarding His Characterization of URS Sub-team Recommendations as "Wishlists"
Mr. Kirikos: This note is sent in my capacity as co-chair. It is in reference to a statement you made in chat during yesterday's final session of the WG. A full excerpt of the relevant chat exchange appears below. The statement I am commenting upon is, "George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists)." I did not comment in real time on this assertion because I did not wish to disrupt the important and constructive discussion that was taking place within the WG. The assertion that sub-team members seek to elevate the status of sub-team recommendations because that would advantage their "wishlists" (sic) appears to imply that the recommendations consist of wish lists. I believe that this assertion is untrue as to both the motivations of sub-team members and the nature of the recommendations. Sub-teams were open to participation by an WG member and you could have joined any or all of them. I participated in almost every meeting of the Providers sub-team and saw no evidence that its members were pursuing any personal or organizational agenda. What I did see was serious consideration of all available data, and constructive efforts to develop and compromise on responsive recommendations seeking to correct operational and policy shortfalls revealed by the data. Sub-team recommendations were subsequently vetted and extensively discussed by the full WG and generally adopted for public comment purposes absent significant change. However they are characterized they carry greater weight than individual URS proposals due to their joint development. I perceive your use of the term "wishlists" pejorative in intent, in both implying that sub-team members joined to pursue preordained agendas, and that the resulting recommendations are fanciful or unrealistic. For example, using the term wish list in that sense, if I believed in Santa Claus I would send him a wish list that started with a private jet whisking me to a five star resort on a tropical island, and finding a gift wrapped Aston Martin in my garage upon return. Finally, I find your use of the term particularly inappropriate given that all fourteen of your individual URS proposals, including one to eliminate the URS entirely, are going to be included in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment. If others shared your attitude they might observe that those fourteen proposals constitute your personal URS wish list. In closing, I strongly urge you to refrain from using terms that denigrate the efforts and ideas of other WG members, and to confine your remarks to the merits or deficiencies of proposed operational or policy changes. ************************************************************************************************************************* George Kirikos: (13:55) Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have support. Griffin Barnett: (13:56) Agree with Susan re differentiating sub-team recommendations vs. "individual" WG member proposals George Kirikos: (13:56) <COMMENT>Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have any support outside the subteam. So, disagree with Susan.</COMMENT> Greg Shatan: (13:56) I thought we were treating the subteam recommendations as Preliminary Recommendations.. George Kirikos: (13:57) <COMMENT>Disagree with Phil. It was a rebuttable assumption not of SUPPORT, but support for INCLUSION in the Initial Report.</COMMENT> Greg Shatan: (13:58) Disagree with George. Agree with Phil. George Kirikos: (13:59) GregS: See page 6 of the slides (next). Greg Shatan: (13:59) Glad to hear that Panama City was not a fever dream. George Kirikos: (13:59) "s have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WGfeedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in theInitial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input;" Georges Nahitchevansky: (14:00) The individual proposals are just that, proposals by an individual and should be noted as such. The sub-team recommendations had multiple data points and views -- and compromises were reached. They represent way more consensus than a proposal by an individual and should should be in a different category. As an aside, any individual could have joined one or all of the sub-teams. So if someon, such as George K, did not join any of the groups when he could of then I think he should be barred form aguing they have no support (after no joining when you could is akin to consent that the sub-teams are constituted were adequate) George Kirikos: (14:01) @GeorgesN: disagree, because that standard wasn't set *before* the creation of the subteams. George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists). Martin Silva: (14:02) + 1 on Georges Martin Silva: (14:02) lot of us were in subteams doing a lot of compromises all around 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
Phil, I find your email very confusing, so perhaps you can explain it better than you have. Are you proposing that the word "wishlist" be banned from use at ICANN? Which other words do you propose to be banned? Especially given that your email was written as "Chair" -- is that email an official position of all the co-chairs and ICANN? I draw your attention to the chat at : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002623.html where Ms. Kristine Dorrain also used the term "wishlist", in this very PDP. "Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes, I think that's right. the key is to figure out the topic. Most of the questions are actually "proposed solutions" or someone's wishlist." Or that ALAC wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/DNS+Security+Issues+within+ICANN... "WG5 Policy proposal Wishlist and development of the Policy proposal to be worked out" I find your email particularly bizarre, given the use by others of terms like "unicorns", "throwing spaghetti at the wall", etc. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-October/003419.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181012/898a79c2/Atte... I'm happy to take this discussion off-list, to a different venue, if you'd prefer. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Mr. Kirikos:
This note is sent in my capacity as co-chair. It is in reference to a statement you made in chat during yesterday’s final session of the WG. A full excerpt of the relevant chat exchange appears below. The statement I am commenting upon is, “George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists).” I did not comment in real time on this assertion because I did not wish to disrupt the important and constructive discussion that was taking place within the WG.
The assertion that sub-team members seek to elevate the status of sub-team recommendations because that would advantage their “wishlists” (sic) appears to imply that the recommendations consist of wish lists. I believe that this assertion is untrue as to both the motivations of sub-team members and the nature of the recommendations. Sub-teams were open to participation by an WG member and you could have joined any or all of them. I participated in almost every meeting of the Providers sub-team and saw no evidence that its members were pursuing any personal or organizational agenda. What I did see was serious consideration of all available data, and constructive efforts to develop and compromise on responsive recommendations seeking to correct operational and policy shortfalls revealed by the data. Sub-team recommendations were subsequently vetted and extensively discussed by the full WG and generally adopted for public comment purposes absent significant change. However they are characterized they carry greater weight than individual URS proposals due to their joint development.
I perceive your use of the term “wishlists” pejorative in intent, in both implying that sub-team members joined to pursue preordained agendas, and that the resulting recommendations are fanciful or unrealistic. For example, using the term wish list in that sense, if I believed in Santa Claus I would send him a wish list that started with a private jet whisking me to a five star resort on a tropical island, and finding a gift wrapped Aston Martin in my garage upon return.
Finally, I find your use of the term particularly inappropriate given that all fourteen of your individual URS proposals, including one to eliminate the URS entirely, are going to be included in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment. If others shared your attitude they might observe that those fourteen proposals constitute your personal URS wish list.
In closing, I strongly urge you to refrain from using terms that denigrate the efforts and ideas of other WG members, and to confine your remarks to the merits or deficiencies of proposed operational or policy changes.
*************************************************************************************************************************
George Kirikos: (13:55) Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have support.
Griffin Barnett: (13:56) Agree with Susan re differentiating sub-team recommendations vs. "individual" WG member proposals
George Kirikos: (13:56) <COMMENT>Sub-team recommendations don't necessarily have any support outside the subteam. So, disagree with Susan.</COMMENT>
Greg Shatan: (13:56) I thought we were treating the subteam recommendations as Preliminary Recommendations..
George Kirikos: (13:57) <COMMENT>Disagree with Phil. It was a rebuttable assumption not of SUPPORT, but support for INCLUSION in the Initial Report.</COMMENT>
Greg Shatan: (13:58) Disagree with George. Agree with Phil.
George Kirikos: (13:59) GregS: See page 6 of the slides (next).
Greg Shatan: (13:59) Glad to hear that Panama City was not a fever dream.
George Kirikos: (13:59) "s have a rebuttable presumption, subject to WGfeedback, of enjoying an adequate level of support to be included in theInitial Report for the purpose of soliciting community input;"
Georges Nahitchevansky: (14:00) The individual proposals are just that, proposals by an individual and should be noted as such. The sub-team recommendations had multiple data points and views -- and compromises were reached. They represent way more consensus than a proposal by an individual and should should be in a different category. As an aside, any individual could have joined one or all of the sub-teams. So if someon, such as George K, did not join any of the groups when he could of then I think he should be barred form aguing they have no support (after no joining when you could is akin to consent that the sub-teams are constituted were adequate)
George Kirikos: (14:01) @GeorgesN: disagree, because that standard wasn't set *before* the creation of the subteams.
George Kirikos: (14:01) It was only asserted afterwards (especially by those who participated in the sub-teams, to advantage their wishlists).
Martin Silva: (14:02) + 1 on Georges
Martin Silva: (14:02) lot of us were in subteams doing a lot of compromises all around
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
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (2)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos