[Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

[Mueller, Milton L]

Matt and all:
The most concerning part of the BC comments concerns Purpose 2. I think it is a slap in the face to those of us sincerely working towards a consensus outcome.

I probably don’t need to remind you how long we have debated that specific purpose. It was clear in Toronto that no less than 3 entire Stakeholder Groups (RRSG, RYSG and NCSG) did not think it was a valid purpose at all. In the public comment period it obtained the least amount of support of all listed purposes. And  yet we bent over backwards to try to accommodate the concerns of BC, IPC by arriving at an acceptable formulation of it.

Even when it was clear we had overwhelming support for the current formulation of Purpose 2, we were required to add footnotes dictated in their entirely by BC and IPC that some of our members find quite objectionable. And now, after all that, they say they can’t accept it unless it is reworded in a way that they KNOW is unacceptable to other SGs – a formulation that was discarded as long ago as the September face to face meeting. This is not “constructive engagement,” folks.

Put directly, BC needs to withdraw those comments if it is serious about reaching a consensus.  Any modification of Purpose 2 as currently formulated would trigger a reciprocal withdrawal of support from NCSG for sure, and in all likelihood the CPH as well.

I guess you like the temp spec so much, or perhaps you are quite comfortable with the permanent absence of a policy, because if these tactics are continued that is exactly where we will end up.  As Matt stated, “what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report?” Review our (NCSG) comments and get a listing of all the things we don’t like. But we accept the need for a policy and for compromise.

Let’s see BC, IPC and ALAC rise to the occasion and show some statesmanship. Everyone has given up a lot of what they want to get here.

--MM


From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Matt Serlin
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:22 PM
To: Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

Thanks Margie for sending this over and I appreciate the time that I’m sure was put into this. I have a few initial comments but let me be clear these are my own personal comments and not those of the RrSG.

While I appreciate (and even personally agree with many of the “minor amendments” you have put forth, I strongly object to the manner in which they have been put forth. The reality is that this group of volunteers have spent thousands of hours discussing and debating these very issues. Everyone had the opportunity to have their views heard and I recall many of these points being discussed among the group, so I don’t believe anyone’s voice was silenced in the process.

The fact that not every group’s views were accepted and included in the report is how it should work in this multi-stakeholder model that we have. If every group had the expectation of always getting their way, how could this possible be successful?

Take the discussion of the organization field as an example…contracted parties started off with a position of redaction while other groups started with full display. After lengthy discussion and debate, everyone compromised, and we ended up with something in the middle. I pointed to that very issue the other day in describing our work to the broader RrSG team as a successful outcome in the process.

How would other groups feel if now we can back and said, “actually for us to sign off on this report, we need to go back to full redaction of the organization field…” I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but what’s to stop every other group from now putting forth their “minor amendments” in order to support the full report.

To be clear, I am not speaking for the RrSG and my comments are in no way a reflection of my views on the substance of your points. I’m simply disappointed we have come this far and are so close to a milestone only to seemingly have our entire body of work held hostage.

I’m also unsure of how we move forward…you’ve indicated you look forward to “constructive engagement” yet you’re clear that your support is contingent on your five amendments.

Apologies for the rant, but thank you for your willingness to read this far ☺

Best regards,
Matt



From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Margie Milam <margiemilam at fb.com<mailto:margiemilam at fb.com>>
Date: Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 10:29 AM
To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

Dear Colleagues-

The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport-3Fpreview-3D_102145109_104237485_EPDP-2520Team-2520Draft-2520Final-2520Report-2520-2D-2520Redline-2520-2D-2520version-252016-2520February-25202019.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=JeJV68_XA0ovurRrcT2fYYDnJIRHwZ_8MSTwyFhaG1A&s=8u2KQZGE49aFP7yFTnfWTiuyyqvJR8V9PDy5tnqBRJU&e=>.

The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support.

We hope to discuss these items with you this week.

All the best,

Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek
BC Representatives on the EPDP







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190218/fa6e65dd/attachment-0001.html>