Hello All, 

I agree with Petter that we broaden the scope of the minority reports that is allowed.  

As you all know, the final consensus call levels and recommendations have been agreed to on 21 June. After discussion with Council leadership it has been decided that individual working group member minority reports deadline to submit now is July 13th end of day UTC.

Thanks again for all the hard work on this PDP.

Susan

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Dear Mary,

Thank you for your formal clarification and always good work in limited time!

With respect to the current deadline, and with reference to Mr Kirikos' suggested amendments/corrections and changes:

I noted some suggested clear corrections, such as "page 7: first line, "his/her registrar"; change to "the registrar"", that may be easy to change in the current Draft.

I have also made a couple of such suggestions in the enclosed version.

However, we also have a deadline today, and I am therefore  - as my personal opinion - open to broadening the scope of a minority report, meaning that  Mr Kirikos and other WG members that wants to draft & file a Minority Statement are free to include any further general or specific comments on our topic.   

Although I presume there will be a couple of traditional Minority Statements, the option to file a more broader statement is also a practical way to give the possibility for all to have your voice heard when it comes to details in the Final Report, such as comments on "the supporting rationales and other text in that document" (citing Mr Kirikos) 


Best regards,
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


7 juli 2018 01:27:57 +02:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>:
Dear George and everyone,

The ability to file a minority statement can be traced to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which provide in relevant part that "In cases of Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, an effort should be made to document that variance in viewpoint and to present any Minority View recommendations that may have been made. Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s). In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submission of minority viewpoint(s)." This provision is part of Section 3.6 of the Guidelines, which are concerned with the designations of consensus relating to the actual recommendations from a Working Group, including the filer's reasons for preferring a proposal that did not achieve consensus. Although the filing of minority statements has been relatively rare, this context should explain why, when they are filed, they are typically viewed and drafted as coming within the Section 3.6 framework.

For an example of minority statements that were filed to a final PDP report which show different writing styles and approaches but that nevertheless are concerned with the various recommendations that were considered by the PDP Working Group, you may find the ones filed for the previous IGO-INGO PDP informative: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42663/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf. You will see that filers can obviously state rationale and arguments for their positions that are at variance with the group's consensus.

This is not to say that Working Group members cannot disagree with how the report is written, or raise concerns over omissions or errors in the text of the report. Typically, these concerns are raised within the Working Group, discussed and resolved, with the Working Group chair facilitating and possibly the Council liaison advising on the most appropriate approach. This type of disagreement should therefore be resolved by and within the Working Group.

However, if the Working Group has a desire to expand the customary scope of minority statements, staff respectfully suggests that this be a discussion conducted amongst the group with Petter and Susan.

Best regards,
Mary

On 7/6/18, 18:45, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

On what basis/rule is the following restriction of what can be in the
minority report valid? Please advise ASAP.

"> Minority statements should be limited to documenting your disagreement with
any of the final recommendations, along with your reasons for such
disagreement (including, if appropriate, your reasons for preferring a
different proposal/option)."

For example, if I disagree with elements of the report or was
prevented from putting in various text into the final report (whether
or not it pertains to a final recommendation I disagree with), it
seems the only place to put that disagreement is in a Minority Report

For example, Phil Corwin had disagreed with the designation levels for
Option 1 of Recommendation 5. Is he allowed to argue in a Minority
Report that the designation level is incorrect within his minority
report? If so, then I should be allowed to argue that the designation
level *is* correct, within my Minority Report. If instead he's not
allowed to argue that the designation level is incorrect, but is
restricted to a limited argument about the recommendation itself
(which is separate from the designation level), and not whether we did
get sufficient support or not to reach a "consensus", then that should
be made clear now, for everyone's benefit (at which point, if folks do
put in things that are not allowed, then the entire Minority Report
should be rejected).

So, I'd like to know precisely what's allowed, and what's not allowed,
with citation to the relevant Rule(s) that might restrict what can be
in the report.

To the extent that any restriction does exist, then the main report
should be allowed to be expanded accordingly, since I do represent
many of the Majority Views (that might not actually be reflected in
the report, due to Staff holding the pen).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269


On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,



Staff has updated the 2 July draft Final Report that was discussed on our
call yesterday – the redline against that 2 July version (in both Word and
PDF formats) as well as clean versions of the latest (6 July) draft (in both
Word and PDF formats) have now been posted on the Working Group wiki space



We have also included a redline of this latest 6 July draft against the
original draft Final Report that was circulated on 11 May.



For your convenience, I also attach the redlined 6 July version (against the
2 July version we used on yesterday’s call), in both Word and PDF formats.



Please note:

If you have substantive corrections or concerns, please post them to this
mailing list as soon as possible, so that we may try to resolve the issue
speedily via email and before the 23.59 UTC deadline on Monday 9 July for
submitting the report to the GNSO Council;
Staff will do our best to do another proof-reading pass-through before the
deadline, though we note that our focus will most likely be on correcting
any substantive errors you may spot in the current draft. We note also that
it will likely be possible to submit a reformatted version to the Council
with typos and grammatical mistakes corrected after the deadline (but not
substantive changes).
For Monday submission to the Council, we will insert the following
placeholder in Annex B (Minority Statements): “As of 9 July, the following
Working Group members had indicated that they plan to submit minority
statements: Mr. Philip Corwin, Mr. George Kirikos, Mr. Petter Rindforth”.
Please let the list know as soon as possible if your name is not listed and
you plan to also file a minority statement.
Minority statements should be limited to documenting your disagreement with
any of the final recommendations, along with your reasons for such
disagreement (including, if appropriate, your reasons for preferring a
different proposal/option).
Susan will revert with a proposed deadline for the submission of minority
statements – for the present, and subject to Susan’s views and report, staff
will suggest COB in your time zone on Thursday 12 July (to allow for the
updated annex to be sent to the Council before the end of the week).



Thank you.



Best regards,

Mary


_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list


_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list