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-mi.... 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 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... 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 > for your review: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_U.... > > > > 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@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

P.S. Footnote 12 of the July 6, 2018 draft does also support a more liberal view of what should be allowed into a Minority Report, as we talked about this issue briefly on yesterday's call. "13 For details of the Working Group’s deliberations on these options, refer to the recordings and transcripts of the various Working Group meetings that took place between October 2017 & June 2018, all available at: https://community.icann.org/x/AQC8B. ****Additional details have also been provided by those Working Group members who filed minority statements (see Annex B).****" ***** = emphasis added (page 9 of the Redline PDF version, https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/88573266/UPDATED%20Draft%20... ) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:05 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Let's have that discussion now, then. Failing that, I ask that we immediately escalate the existing 2nd Section 3.7 appeal accordingly (we already had the call with the Chair, next step would be Heather or her designated representative). I'm available over the weekend (and Monday) at all reasonable times, on relatively short notice.

Because, as just one example, a "restrictive" reading of what's allowed would seem to prevent Phil from talking about the consensus level designations themselves (i.e. if he wanted to challenge the designation levels, then Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines say exactly how that should be handled, in the part that begins "If several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps sequentially....." and because he didn't do that, waives any right to put it in his Minority Report. If that restrictive reading is in effect, then we need to know that now (and enforce it). [Because, I anticipated he would write about that, and wish to counter that (using the arguments I've already made on this list and on the phone calls), which haven't been captured in the report.]

But, it should be a more liberal approach, to ensure that all viewpoints get recorded somewhere (including those that deviate from the report itself in any manner, not just in the recommendations or weren't included, especially because of the time constraints unilaterally imposed on us, and due to the "holding of the pen" issue. i.e. there's stuff that should be in the main report representing even the Majority viewpoints that hasn't been captured yet, and if it can't be captured because of lack of any more meetings, then it needs to instead be allowed into minority reports).

i.e. it's "unusual" for a member of the Majority to have to write a Minority Report, but that's where things are at, because of the strange circumstances surrounding this PDP's conclusion.

Sincerely,

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

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

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-mi.... 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 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c...

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 > for your review: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_U.... > > > > 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@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Dear all, Please bear in mind that the GNSO's procedures allow for flexibility for Working Groups that may face different circumstances. While other groups' experiences may be helpful, they are not determinative as the GNSO's procedures do not prescribe specific timelines or mandatory conditions for minority statements or group sign-off on a Final Report. Staff had suggested this Thursday as a possible deadline for minority statements as a way to make sure that members were aware of the need to get their minority statements in sooner rather than later - this is pending further direction and confirmation from Susan and Petter. In view of the flexibility provided under the GNSO's procedures, Susan and Petter may also be able to provide additional guidance on the scope of minority statements, taking into account the circumstances of this PDP. Staff acknowledges that George believes that the quality of staff support for this PDP is inadequate, and that there may also be a perception that staff is trying to control the timeline and ultimate content of the Final Report. We wish to take this opportunity to assure other members of the Working Group that we do not have the authority to alter any instructions or directions from either the Council or Working Group leadership. As such, what we try to do is facilitate the group's completion of its work within the framework and timeline that has been set for us. As part of this process, our work on the Final Report is necessarily informed by what we believe is a reasonable interpretation of the likely majority of the group's, rather than one or two members', views. We remind all members that the Final Report is not generally intended to be a fully detailed documentation of all the arguments and deliberations that went into the final recommendations, but rather a contextual summary, with relevant background as appropriate, to explain how a Working Group arrived at its consensus recommendations. We apologize for any remaining typos, inconsistencies of phrasing, and similar errors in the version we circulated on Friday. As always, please post a message to this list if you see any substantive errors or omissions, or mischaracterizations of positions or deliberations that are not simply differences of opinion as to how matters should be described. Thank you. Best regards, Mary On 7/8/18, 07:27, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote: While reserving all rights under the revived Section 3.7 appeal (to have the Final Report "deadline" be made realistic; under the "rules" as I understand them, the PDP membership alone is responsible for their Work Plan, and the PDP Charter hasn't been amended; at best, all that GNSO Council could have done was "gone nuclear", namely suspend or terminate the PDP, and not impose a binding "deadline"), I'd like to point out that for Minority Reports, under the prior IGO PDP, the deadline for minority reports was *5* Days after the final report was filed with GNSO Council. See: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_g... (very poorly formatted) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_g... (easier to read this email, which quoted the prior email in its entirety at the bottom) "• In particular, Minority Position statements are provided in Supplement A. However, this supplement is yet to be finalized. In order to meet the 10 Nov 2013 GNSO Council Motions & Documents Deadline, the minority positions were migrated to the supplement and WG stakeholders have until 15 Nov 2013 @ 23:59 to submit revisions or new positions." Mary would certainly have been aware of the prior PDP's 5 days allowance for Minority Reports, as she was part of ICANN staff support for that PDP! https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_g... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_g... https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_g... The fact that ICANN Staff now suggest *3* days as the appropriate time limit is yet another example of how this PDP's work has been continually sabotaged, held to different standards, to prevent the highest quality work from being submitted. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001372.html "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)." [July 12 is 3 days after July 9, for those unable to do the math] Furthermore, I do not intend to read or amend the draft Final Report any longer, while this Section 3.7 appeal is in effec. I appear to be the only person who has even attempted to read it and improve it, yet today is 1 day before it's due! We have to stop pretending that the Final Report is in good shape and ready for submission, and I won't be part of that pretending any longer. [I'll rely on my own words in my own minority statement] Specifically, I *disavow* the current draft Final Report. While I believe the Recommendations themselves have been accurately recorded, the supporting rationales and other text in that document are not in good shape yet for submission to GNSO Council. So, to the extent that there are errors and omissions in whatever gets submitted, the responsibility falls upon those who submitted it, against the wishes of other members of the PDP. And to be even clearer, I'd like to know (and I'm sure other members of this PDP would love to know) who actually supports (i.e. doesn't disavow, as I do) the submission of the Final Report as it stands. Right now, it only appears that Heather (GNSO Chair, not a member of this PDP), Susan (liaison), and perhaps Petter, support the submission of the Final Report tomorrow. Whoever supports the submission should speak up and "own it" affirmatively. i.e. post something like "I've read the Final Report *and* support its submission to GNSO Council at this time." Yet, that would actually require, as a first step actually reading the Final Report! (something most members haven't done yet)! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:53 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > P.S. Footnote 12 of the July 6, 2018 draft does also support a more > liberal view of what should be allowed into a Minority Report, as we > talked about this issue briefly on yesterday's call. > > "13 For details of the Working Group’s deliberations on these options, > refer to the recordings and transcripts of the various Working Group > meetings that took place between October 2017 & June 2018, all > available at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_A.... ****Additional > details have also been provided by those Working Group members who > filed minority statements (see Annex B).****" > > ***** = emphasis added > > (page 9 of the Redline PDF version, > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow... > ) > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:05 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: >> Let's have that discussion now, then. Failing that, I ask that we >> immediately escalate the existing 2nd Section 3.7 appeal accordingly >> (we already had the call with the Chair, next step would be Heather or >> her designated representative). I'm available over the weekend (and >> Monday) at all reasonable times, on relatively short notice. >> >> Because, as just one example, a "restrictive" reading of what's >> allowed would seem to prevent Phil from talking about the consensus >> level designations themselves (i.e. if he wanted to challenge the >> designation levels, then Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines >> say exactly how that should be handled, in the part that begins "If >> several participants5 in a WG disagree with the designation given to a >> position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow >> these steps sequentially....." and because he didn't do that, waives >> any right to put it in his Minority Report. If that restrictive >> reading is in effect, then we need to know that now (and enforce it). >> [Because, I anticipated he would write about that, and wish to counter >> that (using the arguments I've already made on this list and on the >> phone calls), which haven't been captured in the report.] >> >> But, it should be a more liberal approach, to ensure that all >> viewpoints get recorded somewhere (including those that deviate from >> the report itself in any manner, not just in the recommendations or >> weren't included, especially because of the time constraints >> unilaterally imposed on us, and due to the "holding of the pen" issue. >> i.e. there's stuff that should be in the main report representing even >> the Majority viewpoints that hasn't been captured yet, and if it can't >> be captured because of lack of any more meetings, then it needs to >> instead be allowed into minority reports). >> >> i.e. it's "unusual" for a member of the Majority to have to write a >> Minority Report, but that's where things are at, because of the >> strange circumstances surrounding this PDP's conclusion. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de.... 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 >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c... >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> > for your review: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_U.... >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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@icann.org >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >>> >>>

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 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www. leap.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=JfS7uQtze_ xtAr4rCgAxNHrnOXqmJzY3yOAzZ9JOrzk&s=0fHUoWYYSsikEQ6xp_ nZABUcDqwUK4Ouh8ZA6sl6tQM&e=

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 for your review: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ community.icann.org_x_UoVHBQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6 sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=JfS7uQtze_ xtAr4rCgAxNHrnOXqmJzY3yOAzZ9JOrzk&s=hAKcBA7dXmgbRqzk8OtFtcbVF35rat VVVgHxEKTg-As&e=.

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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/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