<div dir="ltr">Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. <div>Not balanced, really. </div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Tanya </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com" target="_blank">tatiana.tropina@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Paul,<div>Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. </div><div>If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. </div><div>Warm regards,</div><div>Tatiana </div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com" target="_blank">PMcGrady@winston.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-7132080693786542034m_-707258147535146007WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Thanks Tatiana,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">We did
<b><u>not agree</u></b> to cut down the representation of each of the IPC, BC, and ISPCP to 1. It has always been 3.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Best,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Epdp-dt [mailto:<a href="mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">epdp-dt-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tatiana Tropina<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 02, 2018 2:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">epdp-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="m_-7132080693786542034h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Donna, dear all,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I agree with Ayden on this - I thought we figured out in Panama that it was a math mistake and IPC+BC+ISPCP should have one member each (3 members from SG in total). Otherwise, the imbalance in SG representation is astounding - CSG will
have 9 reps and other SGs only 3 (including Rr and Ry SGs). I understand that this came from initial counting mistake, but this should be fixed as soon as possible. I thought it wasn't even a subject of discussion as it was a simple counting mistake made because
of drafting on the fly. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I won't be able to attend the call on the 5th as I will be on the plane at the time of the call, but I hope this bad math will get fixed as soon as possible and won't be a subject of discussion on the call. It's not even a discussion about
the balanced representation anymore, the fact that it was a math mistake was accepted by the membership composition team lead in Panama, and why it has got further into the document is beyond me. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warm regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tatiana <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2 July 2018 at 21:29, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <<a href="mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">epdp-dt@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Ayden and Stephanie,
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">I understand your concerns about representation and that it is inconsistent with current GNSO Council
norms, but I wonder if it is possible for you to consider this through a different lens. Because we decided not to have an open call for members in order to keep the size of the team manageable and more responsive we need to come up with balanced representation.
I don't believe, for example, that reducing the numbers for the collective CSG and NCSG provides an appropriate balance with the CPH. I also don't understand the rationale to have 3 GAC members, but reduce the number for the other SO/ACs.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/docume<wbr>nt/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bL<wbr>gFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">Donna</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Epdp-dt [mailto:<a href="mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">epdp-dt-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ayden Férdeline<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">epdp-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope that I am mis-reading the table in
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d-5FbLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw%26r%3DCwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g%26m%3DwNYXG-kMw8XvXkMeaPiTyen9_0Lc1xtvZQdiNNvP_5c%26s%3Dyw0wvypCgsLqYKZDIuVTXgRfQ34yKDbI6nZEO1idk8U%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=YQ804Ws4NDYnJptDPUyXmnCweQMBd9gd7n7F%2FZxHQLg%3D&reserved=0" title="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">
this section of the charter</a>.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">From what I see, it has been proposed that the Commercial Stakeholder Group will have 9 members on the EPDP, whereas all other Stakeholder Groups will have 3 members. This is fundamentally
unfair and we require parity.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If this is not an error, I would like to know based on what rationale it was thought to allocate 9 membership slots to the CSG while all other Stakeholder Groups have only 3 members.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the NCPH level, it is essential that there be parity in membership numbers between the CSG and the NCSG.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ayden Férdeline<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Epdp-dt mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org" target="_blank">Epdp-dt@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/epdp-dt</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
<font color="gray" size="1" face="Arial"><br>
<p></p>
<hr>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this
message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
<p></p>
</font>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>