Thank you Petter and Mary. I am the last person around who wants to prolong this WG. Let’s see how far we get on today’s call. However, I note that George has sent three separate emails proposing a multitude of edits, and each deserves airing and a decision on whether it should be accepted. Once that exercise is completed, I would suggest that a revised redline be posted to the entire WG list so that members who are not on the call have a decent opportunity to review and comment on them prior to final acceptance. Again, I must state that 8 am ET on Monday the 9th is not an acceptable deadline for the filing of Minority Statements. The Final Report is still a moving target and may not be locked down for several more days at a minimum. It is not reasonable to set a MS deadline that may be in advance of agreement on Final Report. Further, once I finish writing my statement I must run it past my superior for review before it can be filed, and right now we are bot a day-and-a-half away from the end of the work week. I therefore repeat my request that, in the event that a Final Report is filed on July 9th, WG members be provided with four additional days until Friday the 13th to file Minority Statements – after four years of work I don’t think that requesting four extra days is unreasonable. I would think that Council would be amenable to a placeholder section for Minority Reports given its decision to ask the WG to complete its task just ten days after the close of the Panama meeting. Receipt of Minority Statements on 7/13 will still give Councilors six days to review them prior to the 7/19 Council meeting. In addition, given the Council’s intense focus on launching an EPDP relating to GDPR and WHOIS, as well as the fact that we are submitting a Final Report that is certain to generate GAC advice that is highly negative, it is a distinct possibility that Council will opt to defer any decision on a Motion regarding the Final Report until its August meeting. Thank you and best regards, 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: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2018 6:55 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] George Kirikos comments on July 2, 2018 draft final report, Part 3 (was Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report) Thanks Mary and All WG Members, I definitely look forward with pleasure to a fruitful and effective final call tomorrow! As to the time: Mary, I hope it is possible to extend it to 90 minutes, if necessary? Then, at the end of our call, if there is still some question marks, I can of course formally ask for an extension, but as it seems not so likely that such request will be accepted, I recommend us all to focus on finalizing everything tomorrow. As to Minority Statement: Mary, please note already now that I will prepare and submit one in support for Option 3 of Rec 5. All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 5 juli 2018 00:12:30 +02:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>: Dear George and Phil, Thank you for your comments and questions. Regarding the date of the GNSO Council call and the expected deadline for delivery of our Final Report - in our experience, the Council has never changed a scheduled date for a Council meeting to accommodate the submission of a PDP report. That said, if the Working Group as a whole (including Petter as chair and Susan as Council liaison) wish to request for an extension to the 9 July deadline, our recommendation is that it be a formal request from Petter on the group's behalf, sent through Susan. Regarding minority statements - staff had suggested a possible deadline of 1200 UTC on Monday 9 July to try to have as much of the Final Report completed as possible. As the consensus recommendations as well as the consensus levels had been settled on at the 21 June meeting, we had hoped that the time between then and 9 July might be sufficient for those wishing to file minority statements (especially since these are not edited or reviewed). However, should any member wish to have more time for this purpose, may we suggest that those wishing to file minority statements at least notify the group by Monday 9 July so that staff can add a tentative placeholder to the relevant Annex, noting that a certain number of minority statements are likely to be filed? Regarding Word v PDF - typically, staff works on documents in Word format which are then converted into PDF for submission and distribution. That is why we had requested that minority statements be sent in Word format, but I should think we can also work with PDF formats if that is how a member wishes to send in his/her minority statement. We note that George's comments include notes on consistency, typos and similar errors (for which we are grateful) as well as more substantive suggestions. We suggest that the Thursday call focus on the substantive suggestions, and will do our best to provide a list to work through on the call. Thank you. Best regards, Mary & Steve On 7/4/18, 16:09, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, This is the part 3 of my comments on the July 2, 2018 draft final report. The earlier parts are at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001345.html (part 1) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html (part 2) This was all based on a single pass through the entire document. I don't plan to do any further passes through it before tomorrow's call. Tomorrow's call was scheduled for only 1 hour. I think we should expand it to at least 90 minutes (our normal call length), or even 2 hours, to try to get as much agreement as possible on all points (including concerns from others about the current draft). i.e. we can work faster over the phone in real-time than we can via email (which is asynchronous). (all page references relative to "Clean" PDF version of July 2, 2018 draft, unless otherwise stated) 25. page 33, first paragraph: for INGOs, it would be Recommendation #1(a) (note just #1), since we added a 1(b) for IGOs since the earlier draft of this report). 26. page 34: Cost: I don't think it's correct to say that it's "outside the remit of the Working Group Charter." Also, it's not correct to call it a "preliminary" conclusion, as this is a final consensus recommendation, and no longer "preliminary.". 27. (no page in particular) I don't this had been pointed out before by anyone in this PDP, but the probability of a court action by a registrant after an adverse URS decision is actually lower than that for an adverse UDRP, because the URS has a built-in review/appeal mechanism that can be utilized, before a registrant need escalate to the courts. Might be worth putting into a footnote somewhere (where we talk about probabilities being 'rare', etc.). 28. page 44: middle column (at bottom) says .."and no change to the URS". Of course Recommendation 5 will have a slight change (set aside the URS decision if immunity asserted), so that language should change slightly. 29. page 48-49: the new text at the bottom of page 48 ("more fully described in Section 2.1 above") should be deleted, as those options at the time were *different* (e.g. Option #4 from Zak came in December 2017). The third paragraph even notes this. If we want to retain those words, they can be moved to the first line of the last paragraph of page 49, i.e. immediately after "During the Working Group's discussion of these six options". 30. page 51: 2nd paragraph: (a) first, "to confirm that there was consensus on the other recommendations listed above" is entirely false, given that the text of those recommendations has evolved, and was never "confirmed" either. I would rewrite as: "…, and to ATTEMPT TO confirm that there was consensus on the other first four recommendations." (removing the words "listed above"). (b) continuing, the May 25, 2018 meeting description is complete fiction, because at that point no designations had been made! THe very first time designations were made was on June 9, 2018: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html Essentially, that entire paragraph is not accurate. What really happened, is that the Summary Report (referenced on page 50) was not well received. Remember, I wrote a long rant about "Everything Wrong with the IGO PDP Summary Report" https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html Then, there was essentially a "Public Display of Possible Consensus", where PDP members who were concerned about the accuracy and inclusiveness (whether their input had even been captured) of the Summary Report openly and transparently shared their views on the mailing list, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html Then, realizing that we were actually capable of reaching consensus (unlike the Summary Report, which saw things more divided), the May 10th and May 25th meetings were focused on revising the text of the recommendations. Then, on May 25, 2018, a two week process was started whereby members were once again encouraged to share their views on the public mailing list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including the 6 options for the Recommendation #5). Then, on June 9, 2018 set his initial designation levels after reviewing all the emails, after which we engaged in an iterative process of revising the text of the recommendations and revising the designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June 21, 2018). You'll note I was careful to not call the May 25, 2018 a "Consensus Call", since it never really was! (happy to refer to it as a "two week process", as a compromise; if you want to call it a "Consensus Call", be sure to add a footnote that that was one of the issues in dispute in the 2nd Section 3.7 appeal made on June 10, 2018). The third paragraph on page 51 is fine, but the 2nd needs to be completely rewritten, to reflect the truth, and not the current fiction. Here's my attempt to write it, as diplomatically as possible: ---- start of new paragraph 2 on page 51 -------- Concerns were raised regarding the accuracy, transparency and inclusiveness of the Summary Report. After discussions on the mailing list, it became evident that more members of the PDP were willing to engage further on the remaining issues than originally was recorded, and that it might be feasible to reach consensus on all 5 recommendations. The Working Group held meetings on 10 & 25 May 2018 to further revise the language of the proposed recommendations. After the 25 May 2018 meeting, a two week process was started whereby PDP members were encouraged to share their views on the public mailing list with regards to all 5 recommendations (including the 6 options for Recommendation 5). On June 9, 2018, after reviewing the emails of the prior 2 weeks, the remaining Working Group chair (can keep the footnote referencing's Phil's resignation), set the initial designations of consensus levels, consistent with the requirements of Section 3.6 of Working Group Guidelines for a Consensus Call. The Working Group held further meetings on 12 & 21 June 2018, and discussions on the mailing list, engaging in the iterative process of further revising the text of the recommendations and revising the designation levels to their final state (which was achieved on June 21, 2018), while also agreeing on the appropriate designations levels for the proposals that did not attain consensus. ---- end of new paragraph 2 on page 51 -------- That's about as diplomatic as I can make it, without bringing in the 2nd Section 3.7 appeal, arguing over what a "Consensus Call" is, etc. 31. page 56, 3rd paragraph "The Working Group scheduled community sessions at each ICANN Public Meeting that took place after its formation" --- not correct, as there were no calls during the Panama meeting (and I don't think was a session at the prior meeting either). Easiest fix is to remove the word "each" and make "Meeting" be plural "Meetings", leaving it more correct than it is as present. Alternatively, change "each" to "most" (and still make "Meetings" plural) 32. page 58: Phil Corwin's affiliation is listed as "BC", whereas it should be "RySG" since he's moved to Verisign. The Wiki page should also be updated (his SOI has been updated, but the table listing the members/affiliations hadn't been). 33. page 58: in the table listing all the constituencies, "CBUC" should be changed to "BC" (to reflect the acronyms being used on pages 57-58). Or, alternatively, change "BC" to "CBUC" for all the relevant members on pages 57-58. 34. page 62: might want to add a footnote/asterisk next to Phil's name, given he resigned as co-chair, as was done earlier in the document. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
