Hi Reg and All,

The e-mail I sent was my personal try to initially collect and show the result, looking at the "yes" and "no" provided.

Thereby we have an indication to further discuss on Tuesday.

It is then also rather obvious that even if you have noted a "yes" on several options, one of them may be your preferred option, and the rest of the "yes" is only if that preferred one receives no majority. 

As you all now clearly can see:
The problem when we expanded from the original 2 options (in our Initial Report of January 19, 2017) to 6 options, is to find a clear majority/support for one specific option. 

However, looking at the e-mail discussion, I am convinced that we can come to a workable conclusion on Tuesday, with a possible one option in a decent majority/consensus level and likely one or two others Minority View/s.

It is indeed positive to see that we all still have such energy and willingness to co-operate with the goal to find a workable result in this last minute!

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


10 juni 2018 02:01:48 +02:00, skrev Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>:
I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”.

Reg Levy
(310) 963-7135

Sent from my iPhone.

On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only
person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was
*vehemently* against that recommendation too:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html

"I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs."

Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear
on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might
want to weigh in again).

Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others
can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort
that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council.

I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone
on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part
of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher
profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny
that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time
crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we
want to do it right?

I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions ---
I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's
positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus
designation levels.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/



On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
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:


"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:


"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:


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):


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



On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth
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

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

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





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:

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



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



_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp