[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report
George Kirikos
icann at leap.com
Sat Jul 7 00:05:50 UTC 2018
Let's have that discussion now, then. Failing that, I ask that we
immediately escalate the existing 2nd Section 3.7 appeal accordingly
(we already had the call with the Chair, next step would be Heather or
her designated representative). I'm available over the weekend (and
Monday) at all reasonable times, on relatively short notice.
Because, as just one example, a "restrictive" reading of what's
allowed would seem to prevent Phil from talking about the consensus
level designations themselves (i.e. if he wanted to challenge the
designation levels, then Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines
say exactly how that should be handled, in the part that begins "If
several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a
position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow
these steps sequentially....." and because he didn't do that, waives
any right to put it in his Minority Report. If that restrictive
reading is in effect, then we need to know that now (and enforce it).
[Because, I anticipated he would write about that, and wish to counter
that (using the arguments I've already made on this list and on the
phone calls), which haven't been captured in the report.]
But, it should be a more liberal approach, to ensure that all
viewpoints get recorded somewhere (including those that deviate from
the report itself in any manner, not just in the recommendations or
weren't included, especially because of the time constraints
unilaterally imposed on us, and due to the "holding of the pen" issue.
i.e. there's stuff that should be in the main report representing even
the Majority viewpoints that hasn't been captured yet, and if it can't
be captured because of lack of any more meetings, then it needs to
instead be allowed into minority reports).
i.e. it's "unusual" for a member of the Majority to have to write a
Minority Report, but that's where things are at, because of the
strange circumstances surrounding this PDP's conclusion.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear George and everyone,
>
> The ability to file a minority statement can be traced to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which provide in relevant part that "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)." This provision is part of Section 3.6 of the Guidelines, which are concerned with the designations of consensus relating to the actual recommendations from a Working Group, including the filer's reasons for preferring a proposal that did not achieve consensus. Although the filing of minority statements has been relatively rare, this context should explain why, when they are filed, they are typically viewed and drafted as coming within the Section 3.6 framework.
>
> For an example of minority statements that were filed to a final PDP report which show different writing styles and approaches but that nevertheless are concerned with the various recommendations that were considered by the PDP Working Group, you may find the ones filed for the previous IGO-INGO PDP informative: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42663/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf. You will see that filers can obviously state rationale and arguments for their positions that are at variance with the group's consensus.
>
> This is not to say that Working Group members cannot disagree with how the report is written, or raise concerns over omissions or errors in the text of the report. Typically, these concerns are raised within the Working Group, discussed and resolved, with the Working Group chair facilitating and possibly the Council liaison advising on the most appropriate approach. This type of disagreement should therefore be resolved by and within the Working Group.
>
> However, if the Working Group has a desire to expand the customary scope of minority statements, staff respectfully suggests that this be a discussion conducted amongst the group with Petter and Susan.
>
> Best regards,
> Mary
>
> On 7/6/18, 18:45, "George Kirikos" <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> On what basis/rule is the following restriction of what can be in the
> minority report valid? Please advise ASAP.
>
> "> Minority statements should be limited to documenting your disagreement with
> > any of the final recommendations, along with your reasons for such
> > disagreement (including, if appropriate, your reasons for preferring a
> > different proposal/option)."
>
> For example, if I disagree with elements of the report or was
> prevented from putting in various text into the final report (whether
> or not it pertains to a final recommendation I disagree with), it
> seems the only place to put that disagreement is in a Minority Report
>
> For example, Phil Corwin had disagreed with the designation levels for
> Option 1 of Recommendation 5. Is he allowed to argue in a Minority
> Report that the designation level is incorrect within his minority
> report? If so, then I should be allowed to argue that the designation
> level *is* correct, within my Minority Report. If instead he's not
> allowed to argue that the designation level is incorrect, but is
> restricted to a limited argument about the recommendation itself
> (which is separate from the designation level), and not whether we did
> get sufficient support or not to reach a "consensus", then that should
> be made clear now, for everyone's benefit (at which point, if folks do
> put in things that are not allowed, then the entire Minority Report
> should be rejected).
>
> So, I'd like to know precisely what's allowed, and what's not allowed,
> with citation to the relevant Rule(s) that might restrict what can be
> in the report.
>
> To the extent that any restriction does exist, then the main report
> should be allowed to be expanded accordingly, since I do represent
> many of the Majority Views (that might not actually be reflected in
> the report, due to Staff holding the pen).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=JfS7uQtze_xtAr4rCgAxNHrnOXqmJzY3yOAzZ9JOrzk&s=0fHUoWYYSsikEQ6xp_nZABUcDqwUK4Ouh8ZA6sl6tQM&e=
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> > Dear Working Group members,
> >
> >
> >
> > Staff has updated the 2 July draft Final Report that was discussed on our
> > call yesterday – the redline against that 2 July version (in both Word and
> > PDF formats) as well as clean versions of the latest (6 July) draft (in both
> > Word and PDF formats) have now been posted on the Working Group wiki space
> > for your review: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_UoVHBQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=JfS7uQtze_xtAr4rCgAxNHrnOXqmJzY3yOAzZ9JOrzk&s=hAKcBA7dXmgbRqzk8OtFtcbVF35ratVVVgHxEKTg-As&e=.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have also included a redline of this latest 6 July draft against the
> > original draft Final Report that was circulated on 11 May.
> >
> >
> >
> > For your convenience, I also attach the redlined 6 July version (against the
> > 2 July version we used on yesterday’s call), in both Word and PDF formats.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > If you have substantive corrections or concerns, please post them to this
> > mailing list as soon as possible, so that we may try to resolve the issue
> > speedily via email and before the 23.59 UTC deadline on Monday 9 July for
> > submitting the report to the GNSO Council;
> > Staff will do our best to do another proof-reading pass-through before the
> > deadline, though we note that our focus will most likely be on correcting
> > any substantive errors you may spot in the current draft. We note also that
> > it will likely be possible to submit a reformatted version to the Council
> > with typos and grammatical mistakes corrected after the deadline (but not
> > substantive changes).
> > For Monday submission to the Council, we will insert the following
> > placeholder in Annex B (Minority Statements): “As of 9 July, the following
> > Working Group members had indicated that they plan to submit minority
> > statements: Mr. Philip Corwin, Mr. George Kirikos, Mr. Petter Rindforth”.
> > Please let the list know as soon as possible if your name is not listed and
> > you plan to also file a minority statement.
> > Minority statements should be limited to documenting your disagreement with
> > any of the final recommendations, along with your reasons for such
> > disagreement (including, if appropriate, your reasons for preferring a
> > different proposal/option).
> > Susan will revert with a proposed deadline for the submission of minority
> > statements – for the present, and subject to Susan’s views and report, staff
> > will suggest COB in your time zone on Thursday 12 July (to allow for the
> > updated annex to be sent to the Council before the end of the week).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list