Hi folks, 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: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... 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 yourself. 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 guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf (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: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000911.html 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 Council: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... very bottom of page 7, and on to page 8 where he's describing those poll results. "...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 that." 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. Incredulously, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@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@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 Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...) 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
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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp