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

Thu Jul 5 08:07:09 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

I'm also concerned that today is Thursday, and we've not seen the text of
any Motion (due by Monday July 9th) to actually vote on approval of the PDP
Final Report (if we manage to have it delivered by Monday). What's the
point of delivering the report on Monday, if there's no accompanying Motion
to actually vote to approve its recommendations? If they punt their Council
vote until August, then its crazy for us to have to put forth an unpolished
report so far in advance of an August vote.

[And when I say "unpolished", I challenge the GNSO Council to look at all
the issues I've found in my review:

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)
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001350.html
(Part 3)

and ask themselves whether the draft delivered this past Monday was
"ready."]

As of right now, no such motions (nor any other motions or documents) have
been submitted for the Monday July 9th documents and motions "deadline":

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-July/date.html

That's another justification for having Council move their own meeting to
July 26th (from July 19th). While Mary wrote that "in our experience, the
Council has never changed a scheduled date for a Council meeting to
accommodate the submission of a PDP report", they should change the
scheduled date for additional reasons, including:

- only 3 week gap between a meeting on the 19th and the prior meeting
(meaning not much 'new business' even exists to consider at a meeting on
the 19th, as evidenced by the lack of any other documents/motions having
been submitted so far)
- it was 'unprecedented (their words) to unilaterally impose the 'deadline'
they did, but starve us of the resources/time to finish properly (had to
essentially beg for today's call during the Section 3.7 appeal call we had,
which is insufficient, and we should have had the draft report far in
advance of this past Monday; we should have had a call last week, too)
- as of right now (8 hours before our call), I'm the only person who has
actually submitted comments (extensive ones); given the short time since
receiving the latest draft, combined with the July 4th holiday, it's very
probable that few (if any) other members have had the opportunity to even
read the latest draft report; obviously the report would benefit from
having other people besides myself actually read it and review it
thoroughly before it goes to Council and then the Board.
- need to provide sufficeint time for Minority Reports (while Mary is
correct the Consensus Recommendations and Designations Levels were
finalized on June 21, we've not seen the finalized text of the Final Report
until this past Monday; i.e. the comments in the minority reports concern
not just the Recommendations, but whatever else is in the (unfinished)
Final Report.

Council should advise us *before* today's call (8 hours from now).

Sincerely,

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

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello Petter and everyone,
>
>
>
> Staff will look into the possibility of extending the call to 90 minutes
> (i.e. an extra 30 minutes from the scheduled time) and will let everyone
> know as soon as we can. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> *Reply-To: *"petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.
> eu>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 18:55
> *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Cc: *George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <
> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos comments on July
> 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 3 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final
> Report)
>
>
>
> Thanks Mary and All WG Members,
>
>
>
> I definitely look forward with pleasure to a fruitful and effective final
> call tomorrow!
>
>
>
> As to the time: Mary, I hope it is possible to extend it to 90 minutes, if
> necessary?
>
>
>
> Then, at the end of our call, if there is still some question marks, I can
> of course formally ask for an extension, but as it seems not so likely that
> such request will be accepted, I recommend us all to focus on finalizing
> everything tomorrow.
>
>
>
> As to Minority Statement:
>
> Mary, please note already now that I will prepare and submit one in
> support for Option 3 of Rec 5.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Petter
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>
>
>
> [image: cid:49D61470-C55F-44F0-AA45-8F4196542C10]
>
>
>
> [image: cid:18E3001D-CCA2-4E3F-8E79-FDEB70779A8D]
>
>
>
> Fenix Legal KB
>
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
>
> 114 35 Stockholm
>
> Sweden
>
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
>
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
>
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
>
> www.fenixlegal.eu
>
>
>
> NOTICE
>
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
> to whom it is addressed.
>
> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and
> attorney work product.
>
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> requested not to read,
>
> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
>
> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
>
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> 5 juli 2018 00:12:30 +02:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>:
>
> Dear George and Phil,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments and questions.
>
>
>
> Regarding the date of the GNSO Council call and the expected deadline for
> delivery of our Final Report - in our experience, the Council has never
> changed a scheduled date for a Council meeting to accommodate the
> submission of a PDP report. That said, if the Working Group as a whole
> (including Petter as chair and Susan as Council liaison) wish to request
> for an extension to the 9 July deadline, our recommendation is that it be a
> formal request from Petter on the group's behalf, sent through Susan.
>
>
>
> Regarding minority statements - staff had suggested a possible deadline of
> 1200 UTC on Monday 9 July to try to have as much of the Final Report
> completed as possible. As the consensus recommendations as well as the
> consensus levels had been settled on at the 21 June meeting, we had hoped
> that the time between then and 9 July might be sufficient for those wishing
> to file minority statements (especially since these are not edited or
> reviewed). However, should any member wish to have more time for this
> purpose, may we suggest that those wishing to file minority statements at
> least notify the group by Monday 9 July so that staff can add a tentative
> placeholder to the relevant Annex, noting that a certain number of minority
> statements are likely to be filed?
>
>
>
> Regarding Word v PDF - typically, staff works on documents in Word format
> which are then converted into PDF for submission and distribution. That is
> why we had requested that minority statements be sent in Word format, but I
> should think we can also work with PDF formats if that is how a member
> wishes to send in his/her minority statement.
>
>
>
> We note that George's comments include notes on consistency, typos and
> similar errors (for which we are grateful) as well as more substantive
> suggestions. We suggest that the Thursday call focus on the substantive
> suggestions, and will do our best to provide a list to work through on the
> call.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary & Steve
>
>
>
> On 7/4/18, 16:09, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <
> gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.
> leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=
> hvdcEbpTZiawFVGJwqqOF-wTrY9iI-iwODBhZOLDEZ0&s=clWbBxJT-
> f8Pu2z6x06q2i14dZqbxPAj35dgPeqzkFI&e=
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/3ab4884e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/3ab4884e/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/3ab4884e/image002-0001.png>