[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos analysis of initial consensus designation levels (as of June 11, 2018)
icann at leap.com
Tue Jun 12 03:05:57 UTC 2018
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")
G] Recommendation 5: Option #3 (staff says "MINORITY VIEW (WITH
CONSENUS AGAINST THIS OPTION)
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")
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.
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp