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

[George Kirikos]

I think the most efficient way to proceed on today's call is just to go
through the suggested changes (which are essentially in the order of the
document) one by one, in order. Some of them will be non-controversial and
will take 10 seconds (and a few might take 5 minutes, if there are
objections). I'd be happy to lead the discussion, since I'm obviously the
person most familiar with the 34 points.

I don't know if the Adobe Connect has a split screen, but we'd need one
window with the "Clean" PDF, and a separate window to go through the 3
emails.

I'll join the Adobe Connect early (now), so folks can talk time
management/strategy for the call.

Sincerely,

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



On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Phil – as you’ll have seen, staff has suggested that it may be
> sufficient for Working Group members who wish to file minority statements
> to notify Petter and the group of their intention by 9 July (with the
> actual deadline for filing to be determined by the group in consultation
> with Petter and Susan).
>
>
>
> On the filing of minority statements – staff would like to note for all
> members that, under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, minority statements
> are filed in respect of policy recommendations for which a member disagrees
> with the final consensus designation (i.e. “In cases of Consensus, Strong
> support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be
> made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority
> View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority
> View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s).
> In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of
> minority viewpoint(s).”) *Minority statements should therefore be
> tailored to specifically address the final recommendations as well as
> proposals that were considered but not agreed on*.
>
>
>
> For the call occurring in less than an hour’s time, staff would like to
> suggest that the Working Group focus on the following issues:
>
>    - How to deal with George’s suggestions regarding jurisdictional
>    immunity as a “quirk of process” in the context of the Swaine report and
>    how the immunity plea will arise in a court proceeding filed by a losing
>    registrant;
>    - How to deal with some suggestions that could be viewed as somewhat
>    subjective, e.g.:
>       - George’s suggestions that the report reflect the following: (1)
>       the view/possibility that the UDRP and URS “inadvertently interferes with
>       or prejudices the rights of parties to have a case decided on the merits in
>       the national court”; (2) the likelihood that a court filing following a URS
>       loss is lower than for the UDRP; (3) concerns the Summary Report.
>       - Paul Tattersfield’s suggestion to include a statement to the
>       effect that an “overwhelming majority” of registrars will be willing to
>       assist IGO complainants in the first instance
>    - Deadlines and next steps
>
>
>
> Although staff has not yet had the opportunity to incorporate the
> suggested textual changes made by George and Paul, we note that most of
> them concern tightening up the text for consistency of usage, factual
> corrections to reflect changes between the Initial and Final Reports, and
> other editorial updates. We will be happy to circulate a revised draft
> Final Report incorporating as much of these textual updates as possible
> following the call.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 10:50
> *To: *"petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>,
> Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: 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)
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> [image: cid:49D61470-C55F-44F0-AA45-8F4196542C10]
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D4144C.700DF560]
>
>
>
> 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 [fenixlegal.eu]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=PJnqq1ntgejFGYHXf5dFFsH2TRsODHvmeTjq3DtVUPU&s=UxR7H6X487cxNBM8BhNJIuBiAbG1F-yEN0xFwtvIox8&e=>
>
>
>
>
> 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 [fenixlegal.eu]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=PJnqq1ntgejFGYHXf5dFFsH2TRsODHvmeTjq3DtVUPU&s=UxR7H6X487cxNBM8BhNJIuBiAbG1F-yEN0xFwtvIox8&e=>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180705/6629a70a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2711 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180705/6629a70a/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/20180705/6629a70a/image002-0001.png>