[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 15:08:15 UTC 2018

In regard to this---

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?

In  my own case, I departed for Panama less than 72 hours after the conclusion of that 6/21 WG call, had many loose ends to tie up prior to travel, and was engaged about ten hours per day once I arrived in Panama. Further, it was always my intent to defer drafting of a Minority Statement until after a proposed final text was received from staff, which was not until the evening of July 2nd (and that is by no means a criticism of staff, as I know the long hours they were working in Panama).

So I am notifying the WG now that I intend to file a Minority Statement and need some additional time past July 9th to complete its drafting and obtain internal approval for submission – and therefore request a placeholder for it in the relevant Annex.

Thanks, 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 6:13 PM
To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>; 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)

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<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20icann 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/20180705/10d4b3d3/attachment-0001.html>