Hi folks, I've done my own analysis, given the problems already identified with the ones done by Staff/Petter/Susan [hereafter just "Staff version"] (which is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001264.html ). Reg Levy's own analysis is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001266.html [although the version on the web is poorly formatted; I suggest if PDP members want to view it more easily, they refer back to the one in their mailbox; conceivably it can be turned into a PDF and then resent to the list to be archives, so that others viewing the web archive can read it more easily] A Google Sheets version is at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... (updates every 5 minutes, if I make changes) and a PDF is attached that is captured as of just before this email. I would suggest Staff add those both to the Wiki for tomorrow's call, so they can be referenced. As you can see, I took more a nuanced view of the input, rather than a black/white (Support/Do Not Support) that Petter/Susan/Staff did. Reg's was also more nuanced, but only looked at the options in relation to Recommendation #5 (I looked at everything). I also took into account Mike Rodenbaugh's input (Reg didn't, that's why she has 14 rows, and I have 15). I also took into account Paul Keating's input from the May 10, 2018 phone call (where he opposed subsidies, i.e. opposed recommendation #4). And I also captured emails up to now (Jim Bikoff's apparent change of position is a bit confusing, so question marks there). I also made inferences for Options #1 through #6 of Recommendation 5 for Osvaldo and Crystal -- but left out any inferences for Recommendations 1 through 4 when there was no direct response for everyone] Anyhow, here's what my analysis suggests: A] Recommendation 1: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS") I think full consensus is achievable, but the wording needs to be slightly changed (i.e. see the comments of myself and Zak, echoed by Nat/Jay), i.e. add the word "substantive". If we look at the text which staff sent out today, they've already added the word "Substantive", so I think we're all in sync on that (compare to Petter's version sent out on Saturday night which had the original text, which didn't include the word 'substantive'). B] Recommendation 2: (staffs says "CONSENSUS") I think consensus is achievable, if we clarify the text. The text got partially changed already (staff version of today, compared with Petter's from Saturday), but as I noted earlier today: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001267.html they only did half the changes. C] Recommendation 3: (staff says "FULL CONSENSUS") I've got this marked as "CONSENSUS", because I have Jim Bikoff marked as no support, based on his email at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html D] Recommendation 4: (staff says "CONSENSUS") This is one the trickier ones. I think Consensus might be achievable, if we clarify the text. But, it might end up being "STRONG SUPPORT WITH SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION". Right now, it's hard to tell. As I noted above, I've captured Paul Keating's input on this issue, which he's expressed on phone calls. E] Recommendation 5: Option #1 (staff says "CONSENSUS") I agree, it appears to be consensus (even with the implied opposition of Osvaldo that I record, but differ on staff with; we agree on all supporters, although I mark Mike Rodenbaugh as a "yellow" instead of a "green" (would be ok with, rather than "support"). F] Recommendation 5: Option #2 (staff says "NO CONSENSUS / DIVERGENCE") I agree. G] Recommendation 5: Option #3 (staff says "MINORITY VIEW (WITH CONSENUS AGAINST THIS OPTION) I agree. 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] Recommendation 5: Option #5: (staff says "NO CONSENSUS/DIVERGENCE") I agree. J] Recommendation 5: Option #6 (staff says ""STRONG SUPPORT BUT SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION") I've got it marked as No Consensus / Divergence, because I treat Crystal/Osvaldo differently than staff (I infer an implied "No"). Also I treat Reg differently too (non-binary). If anyone feels I've interpreted their input incorrectly, please let me know. As for moving forward (I still maintain we need more time), here are some constructive suggestions: 1. "finalize" (subject to a big review before the final report, in case someone missed something big) some of the text that has changed in Recommendation #1 & #2 (which has been changed, implicitly there's agreement, but we should get everyone explicitly on board) 2. Separate out Recommendation 4 (subsidies, etc.) for further discussion. Either agree to change in the recommendation itself (text), or have a more formal survey just separately on that issue (since there were some non-responses) 3. For Recommendation 5, I'd suggest marking Options #2, #3 and #5 as "dead", and concluded determined designations as what they were listed at -- staff and I agree; although others might raise objections] 4. For Recommendation 5, Option #6, I would make a "friendly" amendment for Paul T. Since Option #6 is really just the same (essentially as mediation + Option #1), I would suggest that we isolate things to break the linkage to Option #1 i.e. I would suggest that we create an entirely separate "Recommendation 6" which *only* had the mediation aspect. Then, folks can support/oppose the mediation aspect by itself, without the implicit linkage to Option #1. . Currently, staff doesn't have it reaching "Consensus" a notch below that, and I have it even weaker. 5. For Recommendation 5, Options #1 and #4 -- here the idea of "rank" really should come into play. Having both accepted might be considered "weird". i.e. Option #1 gives a solution to the problem now, but then Option #4 says "we're not going to solve the problem now, we're going to send it to the RPM PDP"). Those are my thoughts for now. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/