[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos comments on July 6, 2018 draft, Part 1 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report)

Sat Jul 7 02:53:23 UTC 2018

Before I list some comments, I want to repeat for the record that this
has been an abysmal process, trying to complete a final report on a
truncated timeline that only a handful of members (at best) have ever
read, let alone had sufficient time to consider what needs to be
*added*, beyond what needs to be *changed*. See my earlier email of
this evening with regards to how wide a latitude is required for the
scope of Minority Reports, in light of this. Can't spend infinite
amount of time "negotiating" text changes with those holding the pen,
and/or those who've never read the document, when it's more
appropriate to simply write what needs to be said directly, via a
Minority Report.

I just did a quick pass only of "changed" text, and while I still have
more comments on the document (including text that might have
changed), especially with regards to whether we should put substantial
additions into this document, or into Minority Reports, here are some
initial comments:

(page numbers are relative to the *Redline* version of the July 6,
2018 PDF draft, not the clean version)

1. page 7: first line, "his/her registrar"; change to "the registrar"
(registrant might be a corporation or other entity, so using words
meant for people like "his/her" don't capture that)

2. page 13: recommendation #2. I made this point before (point #9 of
earlier email --
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html
), and it's *still* not word for word exact! Instead of trying to
change it word-by-word, leaving the opportunity for errors to exist,
it should have been DELETED in it's entirety, and then copied/pasted
from the first part of the document (where it was correct). In my
prior point #10 notes, I gave examples of errors, but not all of them!

What's still wrong?

a) correct recommendation says "name and/or acronym" (vs "name or
acronym" in line 6 of that part)
b) correct recommendation says "service mark rights" (vs "service
rights" in line 7)

and maybe more! (I shouldn't have to be wasting time re-reading it,
when it should be identical already). Just copy/paste from the prior
*correct* version in the earlier part of the document!

These are pretty basic errors that shouldn't be in a document at this
stage, especially when it's already been pointed out! Not only have we
needed to double-check staff's work output, but then we need to
double-check or triple-check their attempts to fix things. Ridiculous.

3. all of point #18 made previously (now at page 22, though); if not
all of it, at least point out that there have never been any appeals
of the UDRP decisions involving IGOs. When we talk about "rare", we
really do mean "rare", since it hasn't happened since the inception of
the UDRP. Folks need to know that.

4. page 12, item #3: "to bring a case to a court of competent
jurisdiction" -- "to have a de novo determination on the merits in a
court of competent jurisdiction"   [simply bringing a case, that could
then be killed on a technicality like immunity, isn't the same]

5. page 28, footnote 20: make it easier on the reader to find it in
the Swaine memo. Unless the numbering has changed, it's footnote 5.
[that's what it was when formatted for our January 2017 report, page
79] While the page number will change in this report, the footnote
number shouldn't change (since it restarts from 1 in the Swaine
section).

6. page 44, middle column "and no change to the URS" (Rec 5 Option #1
does of course change the URS; change to "no change in substantive
grounds to the URS" or whatever we've used before);

7. page 52, 2nd paragraph: all of prior point #30: this is still "fake
news", since the so-called "consensus call" wasn't "in accordance with
the GNSO's customary practice and pursuant to the GNSO's Working Group
Guidelines." Take a close look at what I put forth before as proposed
text (see below) which was quite *diplomatic* in describing accurately
what happened, and what portions were omitted in the current staff
version.

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about who is
"holding the pen", and why there needs to be very liberal allowances
for Minority Reports, to set the record straight.

Here again is the proposed text for that paragraph:

"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 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."

Sincerely,

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

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://community.icann.org/x/UoVHBQ.
>
>
>
> 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