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

Tue Jun 12 03:24:11 UTC 2018

Apologies, I forgot to attach the PDF version of the Google sheets
document. It's attached now.

Sincerely,

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

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:05 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 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:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001266.html
> [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:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj-0i3FsammN5q-iD1QCQ_EMBC8LTzZ30TGvrf6Fw_mUvlnHa9DV9/pubhtml
> (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:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001267.html
>
> 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:
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html
>
> 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
> CONSENUS AGAINST THIS OPTION)
>
> 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
> SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION")
>
> 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.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Initial Consensus Level Designations analysis -- IGO PDP - Summary.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180611/b32db5b7/InitialConsensusLevelDesignationsanalysis--IGOPDP-Summary-0001.pdf>