[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos comments on July 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 3 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report)

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

This is the part 3 of my comments on the July 2, 2018 draft final
report. The earlier parts are at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html (part 1)
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html (part 2)

This was all based on a single pass through the entire document. I
don't plan to do any further passes through it before tomorrow's call.

Tomorrow's call was scheduled for only 1 hour. I think we should
expand it to at least 90 minutes (our normal call length), or even 2
hours, to try to get as much agreement as possible on all points
(including concerns from others about the current draft). i.e. we can
work faster over the phone in real-time than we can via email (which
is asynchronous).

(all page references relative to "Clean" PDF version of July 2, 2018
draft, unless otherwise stated)

25. page 33, first paragraph: for INGOs, it would be Recommendation
#1(a) (note just #1), since we added a 1(b) for IGOs since the earlier
draft of this report).

26. page 34: Cost: I don't think it's correct to say that it's
"outside the remit of the Working Group Charter." Also, it's not
correct to call it a "preliminary" conclusion, as this is a final
consensus recommendation, and no longer "preliminary.".

27. (no page in particular) I don't this had been pointed out before
by anyone in this PDP, but the probability of a court action by a
registrant after an adverse URS decision is actually lower than that
for an adverse UDRP, because the URS has a built-in review/appeal
mechanism that can be utilized, before a registrant need escalate to
the courts. Might be worth putting into a footnote somewhere (where we
talk about probabilities being 'rare', etc.).

28. page 44: middle column (at bottom) says .."and no change to the
URS". Of course Recommendation 5 will have a slight change (set aside
the URS decision if immunity asserted), so that language should change
slightly.

29. page 48-49: the new text at the bottom of page 48 ("more fully
described in Section 2.1 above")  should be deleted, as those options
at the time were *different* (e.g. Option #4 from Zak came in December
2017). The third paragraph even notes this. If we want to retain those
words, they can be moved to the first line of the last paragraph of
page 49, i.e. immediately after "During the Working Group's discussion
of these six options".

30. page 51: 2nd paragraph: (a) first, "to confirm that there was
consensus on the other recommendations listed above" is entirely
false, given that the text of those recommendations has evolved, and
was never "confirmed" either. I would rewrite as:

"…, and to ATTEMPT TO confirm that there was consensus on the other
first four recommendations." (removing the words "listed above").

(b) continuing, the May 25, 2018 meeting description is complete
fiction, because at that point no designations had been made! THe very
first time designations were made was on June 9, 2018:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html

Essentially, that entire paragraph is not accurate. What really
happened, is that the Summary Report (referenced on page 50) was not
well received. Remember, I wrote a long rant about "Everything Wrong
with the IGO PDP Summary Report"

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html

Then, there was essentially a "Public Display of Possible Consensus",
where  PDP members who were concerned about the accuracy and
inclusiveness (whether their input had even been captured) of the
Summary Report openly and transparently shared their views on the
mailing list, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html

Then, realizing that we were actually capable of reaching consensus
(unlike the Summary Report, which saw things more divided), the May
10th and May 25th meetings were focused on revising the text of the
recommendations. Then, on May 25, 2018, a two week process was started
whereby members were once again encouraged to share their views on the
public mailing list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including
the 6 options for the Recommendation #5).

Then, on June 9, 2018 set his initial designation levels after
reviewing all the emails, after which we engaged in an iterative
process of revising the text of the recommendations and revising the
designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June
21, 2018).

You'll note I was careful to not call the May 25, 2018 a "Consensus
Call", since it never really was! (happy to refer to it as a "two week
process", as a compromise; if you want to call it a "Consensus Call",
be sure to add a footnote that that was one of the issues in dispute
in the 2nd Section 3.7 appeal made on June 10, 2018).

The third paragraph on page 51 is fine, but the 2nd needs to be
completely rewritten, to reflect the truth, and not the current
fiction.

Here's my attempt to write it, as diplomatically as possible:

---- start of new paragraph 2 on page 51 --------
Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy, transparency and
inclusiveness of the Summary Report. After discussions on the mailing
list, it became evident that more members of the PDP were willing to
engage further on the remaining issues than originally was recorded,
and that it might be feasible to reach consensus on all 5
recommendations. The Working Group held meetings on 10 & 25 May 2018
to further revise the language of the proposed recommendations. After
the 25 May 2018 meeting, a two week process was started whereby PDP
members were encouraged to share their views on the public mailing
list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including the 6 options
for Recommendation 5). On June 9, 2018, after reviewing the emails of
the prior 2 weeks, the remaining Working Group chair (can keep the
footnote referencing's Phil's resignation), set the initial
designations of consensus levels, consistent with the requirements of
Section 3.6 of Working Group Guidelines for a Consensus Call. The
Working Group held further meetings on 12 & 21 June 2018, and
discussions on the mailing list, engaging in the iterative process of
further revising the text of the recommendations and revising the
designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June
21, 2018), while also agreeing on the appropriate designations levels
for the proposals that did not attain consensus.
---- end of new paragraph 2 on page 51 --------

That's about as diplomatic as I can make it, without bringing in the
2nd Section 3.7 appeal, arguing over what a "Consensus Call" is, etc.

31. page 56, 3rd paragraph "The Working Group scheduled community
sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting that took place after its
formation" --- not correct, as there were no calls during the Panama
meeting (and I don't think was a session at the prior meeting either).
Easiest fix is to remove the word "each" and make "Meeting" be plural
"Meetings", leaving it more correct than it is as present.
Alternatively, change "each" to "most" (and still make "Meetings"
plural)

32. page 58: Phil Corwin's affiliation is listed as "BC", whereas it
should be "RySG" since he's moved to Verisign. The Wiki page should
also be updated (his SOI has been updated, but the table listing the
members/affiliations hadn't been).

33. page 58: in the table listing all the constituencies, "CBUC"
should be changed to "BC" (to reflect the acronyms being used on pages
57-58). Or, alternatively, change "BC" to "CBUC" for all the relevant
members on pages 57-58.

34. page 62: might want to add a footnote/asterisk next to Phil's
name, given he resigned as co-chair, as was done earlier in the
document.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/