[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
icann at leap.com
Tue Jun 12 22:52:44 UTC 2018
As I pointed out on today's telephone call, the list of "support" vs
not-support in the staff-prepared document is not a good indicator.
See the chart I prepared at:
For Option #4 of Recommendation 5, Jim Bikoff's view that "Support
Only If Option One Doesn't Receive Enough Support" and Reg Levy's was
similarly conditioned on whether Option #1 was untenable. Thus, Option
4 isn't "10" vs "3". Obviously Option 1 did receive "enough support"
so a nuanced analysis (as I performed) recognizes that (my chart shows
them in a different colour). I'm not going to count "votes" or
percentages --- I'm just saying look at that chart, and decide for
And that's even with me assigning implied "no" for folks who didn't
expressly show support for Option 1 (like Crystal and Osvaldo).
To actually challenge the designation level for Option 1 would require
an appeal by "several participants", as per the working group
(page 10, footnote 5) Who would be joining Phil on that, when the main
other person opposing Option #1 is Petter Rindforth, the Chair
themselves who concedes that Option #1 has a consensus? So, that's a
dead end. At best it appears in a minority report that few, if any,
will ever read (he can be assured I'll read it, though, as I plan my
own "Minority Report" which is really a "Majority Report
Reinforcement", to make sure any topic that needed to be strengthen in
the Final Report does get strengthened somewhere, albeit in a place
few will ever read).
Re-read Phil's email where he claims " The fact that just three
members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a
“small minority”" or that "My personal view is that a “small minority”
would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly
one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given
position it should be regarded as a “significant number”.
But, then try to reconcile that statement with the results of the
anonymous poll (one I protested via the Section 3.7 appeal I filed) he
and Petter conducted back in October 2017, whose results were posted
to our mailing list in November 2017:
Go to page 6 of the PDF, where "3" folks didn't support Option C
(Option C corresponds to the current Option #3, i.e. arbitration).
Take a look at the percentages, too. Option C was Phil's choice back
then (and still is today, via Option #3).
How were those results characterized in Abu Dhabi (November 2017)? One
can go read the transcript for oneself of his presentation to GNSO
very bottom of page 7, and on to page 8 where he's describing those
"...it appears that Option A – that Option C will be the option
supported by a consensus, and that Option A will be the minority
position. And we anticipate that a minority report will be filed on
So, one can see that Phil was prepared to call it a "Consensus" for
Option C back then. It's entirely hypocritical for him to say what he
said in today's email, when compared to what he said in Abu Dhabi in
describing the results for his favoured Option C where he saw it as
"supported by a consensus". I'll let you decide for yourselves what
this says about Phil's credibility at this point.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
<gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org> wrote:
> Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address
> From: Corwin, Philip
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM
> To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>
> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
> Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I
> believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are
> incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to “Strong
> support but significant opposition”.
> Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG
> describes those designations as follows:
> Consensus - a position where only a small minority
> disagrees, but most agree.
> Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of
> the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those
> who do not support it. (Emphasis added)
> So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4
> constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”.
> Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and
> opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing
> a view.
> Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and
> opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a
> view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.
> There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing
> line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of
> dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much value in this
> context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are
> statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are
> “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority”
> would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter
> of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should
> be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact that just three members are
> in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority”
> given the very small size of the total group expressing a view – if the
> responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and
> 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both
> instances the opposition should be viewed as significant.
> If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this
> statement in my Minority Report.
> Philip S. Corwin
> Policy Counsel
> VeriSign, Inc.
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp