FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from "Consensus" to "Strong support but significant opposition". Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...) describes those designations as follows: 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. (Emphasis added) So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a "small minority" or "a significant number". Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view. Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses. There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of "significant" are not of much value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are "important" or noteworthy". My personal view is that a "small minority" would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a "significant number". The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a "small minority" given the very small size of the total group expressing a view - if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant. If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
As you say, there's no brightline. I would have expected 25% to be "significant" and anything less "a small minority". I get your argument that "important" and "noteworthy" are synonyms but if only one person objected with what they felt were important or noteworthy arguments, I don't agree that this would mean there was "significant" opposition. My 2¢ -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7
On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:54, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address <>
From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to “Strong support but significant opposition”.
Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...>) describes those designations as follows: 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. (Emphasis added)
So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”.
Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view.
Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.
There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority” given the very small size of the total group expressing a view – if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant.
If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report.
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
Thanks Reg. My 2 cents is that the difference between 25%, 23%, and 21.5% is too insignificant to result in a different categorization, and that ‘Strong support but significant opposition’ is the proper designation. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Reg Levy [mailto:rlevy@tucows.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels As you say, there's no brightline. I would have expected 25% to be "significant" and anything less "a small minority". I get your argument that "important" and "noteworthy" are synonyms but if only one person objected with what they felt were important or noteworthy arguments, I don't agree that this would mean there was "significant" opposition. My 2¢ -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7 On 12 Jun 2018, at 12:54, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to “Strong support but significant opposition”. Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...) describes those designations as follows: 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. (Emphasis added) So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”. Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view. Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses. There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority” given the very small size of the total group expressing a view – if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant. If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi folks, As I pointed out on today's telephone call, the list of "support" vs not-support in the staff-prepared document is not a good indicator. See the chart I prepared at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... For Option #4 of Recommendation 5, Jim Bikoff's view that "Support Only If Option One Doesn't Receive Enough Support" and Reg Levy's was similarly conditioned on whether Option #1 was untenable. Thus, Option 4 isn't "10" vs "3". Obviously Option 1 did receive "enough support" so a nuanced analysis (as I performed) recognizes that (my chart shows them in a different colour). I'm not going to count "votes" or percentages --- I'm just saying look at that chart, and decide for yourself. And that's even with me assigning implied "no" for folks who didn't expressly show support for Option 1 (like Crystal and Osvaldo). To actually challenge the designation level for Option 1 would require an appeal by "several participants", as per the working group guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf (page 10, footnote 5) Who would be joining Phil on that, when the main other person opposing Option #1 is Petter Rindforth, the Chair themselves who concedes that Option #1 has a consensus? So, that's a dead end. At best it appears in a minority report that few, if any, will ever read (he can be assured I'll read it, though, as I plan my own "Minority Report" which is really a "Majority Report Reinforcement", to make sure any topic that needed to be strengthen in the Final Report does get strengthened somewhere, albeit in a place few will ever read). Re-read Phil's email where he claims " The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority”" or that "My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. But, then try to reconcile that statement with the results of the anonymous poll (one I protested via the Section 3.7 appeal I filed) he and Petter conducted back in October 2017, whose results were posted to our mailing list in November 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000911.html Go to page 6 of the PDF, where "3" folks didn't support Option C (Option C corresponds to the current Option #3, i.e. arbitration). Take a look at the percentages, too. Option C was Phil's choice back then (and still is today, via Option #3). How were those results characterized in Abu Dhabi (November 2017)? One can go read the transcript for oneself of his presentation to GNSO Council: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... very bottom of page 7, and on to page 8 where he's describing those poll results. "...it appears that Option A – that Option C will be the option supported by a consensus, and that Option A will be the minority position. And we anticipate that a minority report will be filed on that." So, one can see that Phil was prepared to call it a "Consensus" for Option C back then. It's entirely hypocritical for him to say what he said in today's email, when compared to what he said in Abu Dhabi in describing the results for his favoured Option C where he saw it as "supported by a consensus". I'll let you decide for yourselves what this says about Phil's credibility at this point. Incredulously, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address
From: Corwin, Philip Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today, I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4 are incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to “Strong support but significant opposition”.
Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn...) describes those designations as follows:
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. (Emphasis added)
So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4 constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”.
Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members expressing a view.
Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.
There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and reviews of dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above 20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the term are “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority” given the very small size of the total group expressing a view – if the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of Option 1 and 30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both instances the opposition should be viewed as significant.
If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include this statement in my Minority Report.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
George: In regard to this -- For Option #4 of Recommendation 5, Jim Bikoff's view that "Support Only If Option One Doesn't Receive Enough Support" and Reg Levy's was similarly conditioned on whether Option #1 was untenable. Thus, Option 4 isn't "10" vs "3". Obviously Option 1 did receive "enough support" so a nuanced analysis (as I performed) recognizes that (my chart shows them in a different colour). I'm not going to count "votes" or percentages --- I'm just saying look at that chart, and decide for yourself. And that's even with me assigning implied "no" for folks who didn't expressly show support for Option 1 (like Crystal and Osvaldo). -- I believe you have just agreed with me that the "Consensus" designation for Option 4 is incorrect, as the actual support/opposition ratio is 8/3 at best, and possibly 8/5, and this should clearly require a re-designation to "Strong support but significant opposition" at best, and quite possibly "Divergence". I would ask the Chair and support staff to consider both of our inputs and re-designate the support level for Option 4 accordingly. As for Option 1, if other WG members do not support my view that a level of opposition above 20% speaks against a "Consensus" designation then I shall include it within my Minority Statement for Council consideration; the Guidelines are unclear on the dividing line and Council is the ultimate arbiter. Moving on to your request that WG members consider "Phil's credibility at this point", it is regrettable that you once again feel a need to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than sticking to the merits of an issue where you disagree with others, especially when - speaking of credibility - you delayed our work for five months in protest of a poll being taken (even after the co-chairs agreed it would be conducted in a fully transparent manner following WG input into its design), and then proceeded to circulate your own poll and tried to make it a basis for consensus designations, and then denied that it was a poll. The statement I made in Abu Dhabi in October 2017-- "...it appears that Option A – that Option C will be the option supported by a consensus, and that Option A will be the minority position. And we anticipate that a minority report will be filed on that." (Emphasis added) – was only a projection of what our final position might be, and hardly an official pronouncement as no formal consensus call had been initiated. It was based upon the information available at that time, including the WG’s initial poll results as well as indications that even you might support Option 3 if certain modifications were made. Quite clearly I was mistaken as to the final outcome but that doesn’t mean I was attempting to mislead anyone then or now. Regardless of your opinion, I rest secure in the belief that my credibility is held in sound regard within the ICANN community based upon the hundreds of hours over a dozen years in which I have interacted with community members at F2F ICANN meetings, as well as my three years of service as a GNSO Councilor representing the BC . Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 6:53 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels Hi folks, As I pointed out on today's telephone call, the list of "support" vs not-support in the staff-prepared document is not a good indicator. See the chart I prepared at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... For Option #4 of Recommendation 5, Jim Bikoff's view that "Support Only If Option One Doesn't Receive Enough Support" and Reg Levy's was similarly conditioned on whether Option #1 was untenable. Thus, Option 4 isn't "10" vs "3". Obviously Option 1 did receive "enough support" so a nuanced analysis (as I performed) recognizes that (my chart shows them in a different colour). I'm not going to count "votes" or percentages --- I'm just saying look at that chart, and decide for yourself. And that's even with me assigning implied "no" for folks who didn't expressly show support for Option 1 (like Crystal and Osvaldo). To actually challenge the designation level for Option 1 would require an appeal by "several participants", as per the working group guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf (page 10, footnote 5) Who would be joining Phil on that, when the main other person opposing Option #1 is Petter Rindforth, the Chair themselves who concedes that Option #1 has a consensus? So, that's a dead end. At best it appears in a minority report that few, if any, will ever read (he can be assured I'll read it, though, as I plan my own "Minority Report" which is really a "Majority Report Reinforcement", to make sure any topic that needed to be strengthen in the Final Report does get strengthened somewhere, albeit in a place few will ever read). Re-read Phil's email where he claims " The fact that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority”" or that "My personal view is that a “small minority” would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. But, then try to reconcile that statement with the results of the anonymous poll (one I protested via the Section 3.7 appeal I filed) he and Petter conducted back in October 2017, whose results were posted to our mailing list in November 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000911.html Go to page 6 of the PDF, where "3" folks didn't support Option C (Option C corresponds to the current Option #3, i.e. arbitration). Take a look at the percentages, too. Option C was Phil's choice back then (and still is today, via Option #3). How were those results characterized in Abu Dhabi (November 2017)? One can go read the transcript for oneself of his presentation to GNSO Council: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript... very bottom of page 7, and on to page 8 where he's describing those poll results. "...it appears that Option A – that Option C will be the option supported by a consensus, and that Option A will be the minority position. And we anticipate that a minority report will be filed on that." So, one can see that Phil was prepared to call it a "Consensus" for Option C back then. It's entirely hypocritical for him to say what he said in today's email, when compared to what he said in Abu Dhabi in describing the results for his favoured Option C where he saw it as "supported by a consensus". I'll let you decide for yourselves what this says about Phil's credibility at this point. Incredulously, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote:
Resending as I apparently used an incorrect email address
From: Corwin, Philip
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 2:54 PM
To: 'Gnso-igo-ingo-crp' <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>>
Subject: Proposed Revision of Consensus Levels
Following up on the statement I made during our WG call earlier today,
I believe that the initial designations of support for Options 1 and 4
are incorrect and that they should be changed from “Consensus” to
“Strong support but significant opposition”.
Section 3.6 (Standard Methodology for Making Decisions) of the GNSO WG
Guidelines
(https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ann
ex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf)
describes those designations as follows:
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. (Emphasis added)
So the relevant question is whether the opposition to Options 1 and 4
constitutes a “small minority” or “a significant number”.
Option 1 for Recommendation 5 received support from 11 WG members and
opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 21.5% of all members
expressing a view.
Option 4 for Recommendation 5 received support from 10 members and
opposition from 3; those opposed constituted 23% of all members
expressing a view. That is just shy of one-quarter of all responses.
There is no bright line test in the Guidelines for discerning the
dividing line between a small minority and a significant number, and
reviews of dictionary definitions of “significant” are not of much
value in this context. While there can be no doubt that results above
20% are statistically significant, the most common definitions of the
term are “important” or noteworthy”. My personal view is that a “small minority”
would be 10% or less, but that when more than a fifth and nearly
one-quarter of those expressing a view are in opposition to a given
position it should be regarded as a “significant number”. The fact
that just three members are in opposition cannot be used alone to designate them as a “small minority”
given the very small size of the total group expressing a view – if
the responses were multiplied by 10 there would be 110 in favor of
Option 1 and
30 opposed, and 100 on favor of Option 4 and 30 opposed, and in both
instances the opposition should be viewed as significant.
If the Chair does not alter the initial designations I will include
this statement in my Minority Report.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Phil: On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
-- I believe you have just agreed with me that the "Consensus" designation for Option 4 is incorrect, as the actual support/opposition ratio is 8/3 at best, and possibly 8/5, and this should clearly require a re-designation to "Strong support but significant opposition" at best, and quite possibly "Divergence". I would ask the Chair and support staff to consider both of our inputs and re-designate the support level for Option 4 accordingly.
I already conducted my own independent analysis of *all* the input, and posted it at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001274.html which was done *before* yesterday's call, with a spreadsheet too: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQgB2sY5AgaBZUHsHJJPLIsAwTFj... (also sent as a PDF in that thread, and last updated as a PDF at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001282.html ) I already plainly said back then: "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'm not going to go into the numbers on that (since it's not decided just by numbers, since these aren't "votes"), but take a look at the entire chart. I obviously disagree with nearly all the rest of what you said, but am happy to take it offline or in private emails if anyone besides us actually cares to know the details. The last significant time you and I really "went at it" with the back and forth was last month: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html In particular, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001166.html where, rather than post a long rebuttal (which I think many would have anticipated), I simply left it at "We'll see what happens tomorrow." (an understated and perhaps unexpected response). It took 2 days to see what happened next, not 1: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001186.html I learned something from that, and shall be "understated" once again this time. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (3)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Reg Levy