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

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Wed Jun 13 22:49:13 UTC 2018


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> -- I believe you have just agreed with me that the "Consensus" designation
> for Option 4 is incorrect, as the actual support/opposition ratio is 8/3 at
> best, and possibly 8/5, and this should clearly require a re-designation to
> "Strong support but significant opposition" at best, and quite possibly
> "Divergence". I would ask the Chair and support staff to consider both of
> our inputs and re-designate the support level for Option 4 accordingly.

I already conducted my own independent analysis of *all* the input,
and posted it at:


which was done *before* yesterday's call, with a spreadsheet too:


(also sent as a PDF in that thread, and last updated as a PDF at

I already plainly said back then:

"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'm not going to go into the numbers on that (since it's not decided
just by numbers, since these aren't "votes"), but take a look at the
entire chart.

I obviously disagree with nearly all the rest of what you said, but am
happy to take it offline or in private emails if anyone besides us
actually cares to know the details. The last significant time you and
I really "went at it" with the back and forth was last month:


In particular, see:

where, rather than post a long rebuttal (which I think many would have
anticipated), I simply left it at "We'll see what happens tomorrow."
(an understated and perhaps unexpected response). It took 2 days to
see what happened next, not 1:


I learned something from that, and shall be "understated" once again this time.


George Kirikos

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