[Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report

[King, Brian]

Hi Milton,

In that case I won’t “go so far” to keep our agreement intact 😊

The word “never” seems troubling to me, so if you could help me understand the last part of your last sentence a bit better please:

Are you saying that even if the DPB writes to the Strawberries and says “yes, it’s possible to isolate liability for decision-making centrally with ICANN Org”, it would still be impossible for us to come to consensus on the centralized decision-making model? (ignoring how (un)likely we think that response is)

Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs

T +1 443 761 3726
markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>

MarkMonitor
Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:26 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report

Ha, you spoiled the agreement, Brian. ;-)

>If I can go so far, I suggest that the initial report indicate that we are
> working primarily toward the “centralized” model pending crucial input from the DPB.

This is not our understanding at all. One reason I want to eliminate the “no SSAD” option is that I think it confuses the issue of centralizing requests, which can be done and can gain consensus, versus centralizing the decision maker, which I think is deeply problematic and will never gain consensus.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20191203/2c9c8bc9/attachment.html>