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

Thu Jul 5 14:50:25 UTC 2018

Thank you Petter and Mary.

I am the last person around who wants to prolong this WG.

Let’s see how far we get on today’s call. However, I note that George has sent three separate emails proposing a multitude of edits, and each deserves airing and a decision on whether it should be accepted. Once that exercise is completed, I would suggest that a revised redline be posted to the entire WG list so that members who are not on the call have a decent opportunity to review and comment on them prior to final acceptance.

Again, I must state that 8 am ET on Monday the 9th is not an acceptable deadline for the filing of Minority Statements. The Final Report is still a moving target and may not be locked down for several more days at a minimum. It is not reasonable to set a MS deadline that may be in advance of agreement on Final Report. Further, once I finish writing my statement I must run it past my superior for review before it can be filed, and right now we are bot a day-and-a-half away from the end of the work week.

I therefore repeat my request that, in the event that a Final Report is filed on July 9th, WG members be provided with four additional days until Friday the 13th to file Minority Statements – after four years of work I don’t think that requesting four extra days is unreasonable. I would think that Council would be amenable to a placeholder section for Minority Reports given its decision to ask the WG to complete its task just ten days after the close of the Panama meeting. Receipt of Minority Statements on 7/13 will still give Councilors six days to review them prior to the 7/19 Council meeting.

In addition, given the Council’s intense focus on launching an EPDP relating to GDPR and WHOIS, as well as the fact that we are submitting a Final Report that is certain to generate GAC advice that is highly negative, it is a distinct possibility that Council will opt to defer any decision on a Motion regarding the Final Report until its August meeting.

Thank you and best regards,

Philip

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

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 6:55 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 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

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<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>

www.fenixlegal.eu<http://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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

Thank you

5 juli 2018 00:12:30 +02:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of icann at leap.com<mailto: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=hvdcEbpTZiawFVGJwqqOF-wTrY9iI-iwODBhZOLDEZ0&s=clWbBxJT-f8Pu2z6x06q2i14dZqbxPAj35dgPeqzkFI&e=

   _______________________________________________

   Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

   Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/c584ed54/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2710 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/c584ed54/image001-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6210 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/c584ed54/image003-0001.png>