Hi folks, 1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation Levels. 2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html "On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough support." but then a few minutes ago, he wrote: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html "Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4." I don't understand what's going on there. 3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that] When Reg wrote: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary. In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO... where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with the newer responses at some point. The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most recent responses in the past 2 weeks). Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going. This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Dear All WG Members,
Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call.
I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached document, to discuss further on Tuesday.
For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:
Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.
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.
Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.
Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals
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 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 Thank you
5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>:
Dear all,
The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y865xn8y
Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ
Web conference tool: Adobe Connect
Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]
Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar.
If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org
If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers and participant passcode below.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Andrea
______________________________________________________________________
Participant passcode: IGO
Dial in numbers:
Country
Toll Numbers
Freephone/ Toll Free Number
ARGENTINA
0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA
ADELAIDE:
61-8-8121-4842
1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA
BRISBANE:
61-7-3102-0944
1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA:
61-2-6100-1944
1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA
MELBOURNE:
61-3-9010-7713
1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA
PERTH:
61-8-9467-5223
1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY:
61-2-8205-8129
1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA
43-1-92-81-113
0800-005-259
BELGIUM
32-2-400-9861
0800-3-8795
BRAZIL
RIO DE JANEIRO:
55-21-40421490
0800-7610651
BRAZIL
SAO PAULO:
55-11-3958-0779
0800-7610651
CHILE
1230-020-2863
CHINA
CHINA A:
86-400-810-4789
10800-712-1670
CHINA
CHINA B:
86-400-810-4789
10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA
01800-9-156474
CROATIA
080-08-06-309
CZECH REPUBLIC
420-2-25-98-56-64
800-700-177
DENMARK
45-7014-0284
8088-8324
EGYPT
0800000-9029
ESTONIA
800-011-1093
FINLAND
358-9-5424-7162
0-800-9-14610
FRANCE
LYON:
33-4-26-69-12-85
080-511-1496
FRANCE
MARSEILLE:
33-4-86-06-00-85
080-511-1496
FRANCE
PARIS:
33-1-70-70-60-72
080-511-1496
GERMANY
49-69-2222-20362
0800-664-4247
GREECE
30-80-1-100-0687
00800-12-7312
HONG KONG
852-3001-3863
800-962-856
HUNGARY
36-1-700-8856
06-800-12755
INDIA
INDIA A:
000-800-852-1268
INDIA
INDIA B:
000-800-001-6305
INDIA
INDIA C:
1800-300-00491
INDONESIA
001-803-011-3982
IRELAND
353-1-246-7646
1800-992-368
ISRAEL
1-80-9216162
ITALY
MILAN:
39-02-3600-6007
800-986-383
ITALY
ROME:
39-06-8751-6018
800-986-383
ITALY
TORINO:
39-011-510-0118
800-986-383
JAPAN
OSAKA:
81-6-7878-2631
0066-33-132439
JAPAN
TOKYO:
81-3-6868-2631
0066-33-132439
LATVIA
8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG
352-27-000-1364
8002-9246
MALAYSIA
1-800-81-3065
MEXICO
GUADALAJARA (JAL):
52-33-3208-7310
001-866-376-9696
MEXICO
MEXICO CITY:
52-55-5062-9110
001-866-376-9696
MEXICO
MONTERREY:
52-81-2482-0610
001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS
31-20-718-8588
0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND
64-9-970-4771
0800-447-722
NORWAY
47-21-590-062
800-15157
PANAMA
011-001-800-5072065
PERU
0800-53713
PHILIPPINES
63-2-858-3716
1800-111-42453
POLAND
00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL
351-2-10054705
8008-14052
ROMANIA
40-31-630-01-79
RUSSIA
8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA
800-8-110087
SINGAPORE
65-6883-9230
800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
421-2-322-422-25
0800-002066
SOUTH AFRICA
080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA
82-2-6744-1083
00798-14800-7352
SPAIN
34-91-414-25-33
800-300-053
SWEDEN
46-8-566-19-348
0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND
41-44-580-6398
0800-120-032
TAIWAN
886-2-2795-7379
00801-137-797
THAILAND
001-800-1206-66056
TURKEY
00-800-151-0516
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
8000-35702370
UNITED KINGDOM
BIRMINGHAM:
44-121-210-9025
0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM
GLASGOW:
44-141-202-3225
0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM
LEEDS:
44-113-301-2125
0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM
LONDON:
44-20-7108-6370
0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM
MANCHESTER:
44-161-601-1425
0808-238-6029
URUGUAY
000-413-598-3421
USA
1-517-345-9004
866-692-5726
VENEZUELA
0800-1-00-3702
VIETNAM
120-11751
_______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp