[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 08:33:39 UTC 2018

I agree with George totally unacceptable process management yet again!

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:07 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> 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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM
>> &r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=hvdcEbpTZia
>> wFVGJwqqOF-wTrY9iI-iwODBhZOLDEZ0&s=clWbBxJT-f8Pu2z6x06q2i14d
>> ZqbxPAj35dgPeqzkFI&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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180705/35d27575/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20180705/35d27575/image002-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20180705/35d27575/image001-0001.jpg>