[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos analysis of initial consensus designation levels (as of June 11, 2018)

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Tue Jun 12 03:05:57 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

I've done my own analysis, given the problems already identified with
the ones done by Staff/Petter/Susan [hereafter just "Staff version"]
(which is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001264.html

Reg Levy's own analysis is at:
[although the version on the web is poorly formatted; I suggest if PDP
members want to view it more easily, they refer back to the one in
their mailbox; conceivably it can be turned into a PDF and then resent
to the list to be archives, so that others viewing the web archive can
read it more easily]

A Google Sheets version is at:

(updates every 5 minutes, if I make changes)

and a PDF is attached that is captured as of just before this email. I
would suggest Staff add those both to the Wiki for tomorrow's call, so
they can be referenced.

As you can see, I took more a nuanced view of the input, rather than a
black/white (Support/Do Not Support) that Petter/Susan/Staff did.
Reg's was also more nuanced, but only looked at the options in
relation to Recommendation #5 (I looked at everything). I also took
into account Mike Rodenbaugh's input (Reg didn't, that's why she has
14 rows, and I have 15). I also took into account Paul Keating's input
from the May 10, 2018 phone call (where he opposed subsidies, i.e.
opposed recommendation #4). And I also captured emails up to now (Jim
Bikoff's apparent change of position is a bit confusing, so question
marks there). I also made inferences for Options #1 through #6 of
Recommendation 5 for Osvaldo and Crystal -- but left out any
inferences for Recommendations 1 through 4 when there was no direct
response for everyone]

Anyhow, here's what my analysis suggests:

A] Recommendation 1: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS")

I think full consensus is achievable, but the wording needs to be
slightly changed (i.e. see the comments of myself and Zak, echoed by
Nat/Jay), i.e. add the word "substantive". If we look at the text
which staff sent out today, they've already added the word
"Substantive", so I think we're all in sync on that (compare to
Petter's version sent out on Saturday night which had the original
text, which didn't include the word 'substantive').

B] Recommendation 2: (staffs says "CONSENSUS")

I think consensus is achievable, if we clarify the text. The text got
partially changed already (staff version of today, compared with
Petter's from Saturday), but as I noted earlier today:


they only did half the changes.

C] Recommendation 3: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS")

I've got this marked as "CONSENSUS", because I have Jim Bikoff marked
as no support, based on his email at:

D] Recommendation 4: (staff says "CONSENSUS")

This is one the trickier ones. I think Consensus might be achievable,
if we clarify the text. But, it might end up being "STRONG SUPPORT
WITH SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION". Right now, it's hard to tell. As I noted
above, I've captured Paul Keating's input on this issue, which he's
expressed on phone calls.

E] Recommendation 5: Option #1 (staff says "CONSENSUS")

I agree, it appears to be consensus (even with the implied opposition
of Osvaldo that I record, but differ on staff with; we agree on all
supporters, although I mark Mike Rodenbaugh as a "yellow" instead of a
"green" (would be ok with, rather than "support").

F] Recommendation 5: Option #2 (staff says "NO CONSENSUS / DIVERGENCE")

I agree.

G] Recommendation 5: Option #3 (staff says "MINORITY VIEW (WITH

I agree.

H] Recommendation 5: Option #4: (staff says "CONSENSUS")

I think this one's unclear. I think it's either consensus (but a
smaller one than Option #1), OR it is Strong Support But Significant
Opposition. Unlike Staff, I base this on implied "No" from Crystal and
Osvaldo, and non-binary "conditional support" from Jim and Reg, as
well as the rank preferences from others in Option #1]

I] Recommendation 5: Option #5: (staff says "NO CONSENSUS/DIVERGENCE")

I agree.

J] Recommendation 5: Option #6 (staff says ""STRONG SUPPORT BUT

I've got it marked as No Consensus / Divergence, because I treat
Crystal/Osvaldo differently than staff (I infer an implied "No"). Also
I treat Reg differently too (non-binary).

If anyone feels I've interpreted their input incorrectly, please let me know.

As for moving forward (I still maintain we need more time), here are
some constructive suggestions:

1. "finalize" (subject to a big review before the final report, in
case someone missed something big) some of the text that has changed
in Recommendation #1 & #2 (which has been changed, implicitly there's
agreement, but we should get everyone explicitly on board)

2. Separate out Recommendation 4 (subsidies, etc.) for further
discussion. Either agree to change in the recommendation itself
(text), or have a more formal survey just separately on that issue
(since there were some non-responses)

3. For Recommendation 5, I'd suggest marking Options #2, #3 and #5 as
"dead", and concluded determined designations as what they were listed
at -- staff and I agree; although others might raise objections]

4. For Recommendation 5, Option #6, I would make a "friendly"
amendment for Paul T. Since Option #6 is really just the same
(essentially as mediation + Option #1), I would suggest that we
isolate things to break the linkage to Option #1  i.e. I would suggest
that we create an entirely separate "Recommendation 6" which *only*
had the mediation aspect. Then, folks can support/oppose the mediation
aspect by itself, without the implicit linkage to Option #1. .
Currently, staff doesn't have it reaching "Consensus" a notch below
that, and I have it even weaker.

5. For Recommendation 5, Options #1 and #4 -- here the idea of "rank"
really should come into play. Having both accepted might be considered
"weird". i.e. Option #1 gives a solution to the problem now, but then
Option #4 says "we're not going to solve the problem now, we're going
to send it to the RPM PDP").

Those are my thoughts for now.


George Kirikos

More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list