<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 26px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Phil,</div><div><br></div><div>You said:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class="" style="font-family: -webkit-standard;"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;"><div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div class="" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div>I am not at all sure I can agree with you about what is significant vs insignificant.</div><div><br></div><div>The significance of the opposition is more properly measured in context of those in support and not merely in the context of the total number of participants expressing an opinion. Further, just simply looking at opposition as an aggregate group leads to further inappropriate conclusions. An opposition of 4 cannot be expressed as “significant" if each of the 4 had differing reasons for opposition or opted to support alternative options within Recommendation #5. It would be even less “significant” if 2 were completely opposed to the entire Recommendation (regardless of option) and the other 2 were merely opposed to Option 1 but favored a different Option to the same recommendation number 5.</div><div><br></div><div>Thus, more appropriate viewing would be:</div><div><br></div><div>Option 1:</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In Favor: 11 (79%)</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Opposed: 3 (21%)</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">Explanatory note (example only): Several members in opposition expressed support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5. One member was completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option.</blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Option 4:</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In Favor: 10 (77%)</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Opposed: 3 (23%)</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;"><div> Explanatory note (example only): Several members in opposition expressed support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5. One member was completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option.</div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My 2 cents.</div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span> "Corwin, Philip" <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:49 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:rlevy@tucows.com">rlevy@tucows.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:rlevy@tucows.com">rlevy@tucows.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose">Thanks Reg.<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">My 2 cents is that the difference between 25%, 23%, and 21.5% is too insignificant to result in a different categorization, and that ‘Strong support but significant opposition’ is the proper designation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Best, Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Reg Levy [<a href="mailto:rlevy@tucows.com">mailto:rlevy@tucows.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:32 PM<br><b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">As you say, there's no brightline. I would have expected 25% to be "significant" and anything less "a small minority". I get your argument that "important" and "noteworthy" are synonyms but if only one person objected with what they felt
were important or noteworthy arguments, I don't agree that this would mean there was "significant" opposition.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">My 2¢<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
--<br>
Reg Levy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Director of Compliance<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Tucows<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">D: +1 (323) 880-0831<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">UTC -7<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal">On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:54, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Corwin, Philip<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><br><b>Sent:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM<br><b>To:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org"><span style="color:#954F72">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</span></a>><br><b>Subject:</b><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to “Strong support but significant
opposition”.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (<a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf"><span style="color:#954F72">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf</span></a>)
describes those designations as follows:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> Consensus - a position where only<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>a small minority disagrees</b>, but most agree.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div style="margin-left:.5in"><p class="MsoNormal">Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><b>a significant number of those who do not support it</b>. (Emphasis
added)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much value in this context. While there
can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter
of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority” given the very small size of
the total group expressing a view – if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br></span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br></span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></blockquote></span></body></html>