[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed Jun 13 16:45:21 UTC 2018 

Phil,

You said:

> 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.
I am not at all sure I can agree with you about what is significant vs
insignificant.

The significance of the opposition is more properly measured in context of
those in support and not merely in the context of the total number of
participants expressing an opinion.  Further, just simply looking at
opposition as an aggregate group leads to further inappropriate conclusions.
An opposition of 4 cannot be expressed as ³significant" if each of the 4 had
differing reasons for opposition or opted to support alternative options
within Recommendation #5.   It would be even less ³significant² if 2 were
completely opposed to the entire Recommendation (regardless of option) and
the other 2 were merely opposed to Option 1 but favored a different Option
to the same recommendation number 5.

Thus, more  appropriate viewing would be:

Option 1:
In Favor:  11 (79%)
Opposed:  3  (21%)
>> Explanatory note (example only):  Several members in opposition expressed
>> support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5.  One member was
>> completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option.

Option 4:
In Favor:  10  (77%)
Opposed:  3  (23%)
>>  Explanatory note (example only):  Several members in opposition expressed
>> support for competing options for Recommendation Number 5.  One member was
>> completely opposed to Recommendation Number 5 regardless of option.

My 2 cents.

Paul
From:  Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
"Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Reply-To:  "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date:  Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:49 PM
To:  "rlevy at tucows.com" <rlevy at tucows.com>
Cc:  "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels

> Thanks Reg.
>  
> My 2 cents is that the difference between 25%, 23%, and 21.5% is too
> insignificant to result in a different categorization, and that ŒStrong
> support but significant opposition¹ is the proper designation.
>  
> Best, Philip
>  
> 
> Philip S. Corwin
> Policy Counsel
> VeriSign, Inc.
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 703-948-4648/Direct
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> 
> From: Reg Levy [mailto:rlevy at tucows.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:32 PM
> To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus
> Levels
>  
> As you say, there's no brightline. I would have expected 25% to be
> "significant" and anything less "a small minority". I get your argument that
> "important" and "noteworthy" are synonyms but if only one person objected with
> what they felt were important or noteworthy arguments, I don't agree that this
> would mean there was "significant" opposition.
> 
>  
> 
> My 2¢
> 
> 
> --
> Reg Levy
> 
> Director of Compliance
> 
> Tucows
> 
>  
> 
> D: +1 (323) 880-0831
> 
> O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452
> 
>  
> 
> UTC -7
>  
>> 
>> On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:54, 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
>> <mailto: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 ³Consensus² to ³Strong support
>> but significant opposition².
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG
>> Guidelines 
>> (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn
>> so-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn
>> so-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf> ) 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 ³small minority² or ³a significant number².
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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 ³significant² 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 ³important² or
>> noteworthy². My personal view is that a ³small minority² 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 ³significant number².  The fact that just three members are in
>> opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a ³small minority² 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
>> 
>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>> 
>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>  
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180613/bfd67d7d/attachment.html>

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