[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 06:01:03 UTC 2018

Hi folks,

After consulting with Jim Bikoff off-list, I've updated my spreadsheet
to remove the question marks (got those ones right, so they didn't
change from before), and fixed a typo [from "Does" to "Doesn't"] which
didn't actually change any of the analysis (that cell was Yellow, so I
assessed it correctly, just didn't notice the typo until now).

The web link updates automatically:


(every 5 minutes) but some might prefer the PDF.

Bedtime for me.


George Kirikos

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:24 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
>> 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 - 2018June12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180612/81203bdc/InitialConsensusLevelDesignationsanalysis--IGOPDP-Summary-2018June12-0001.pdf>

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