[Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed Chair Statement and Consensus Designations

[Alan Greenberg]

Keith, are you planning to do a formal Consensus Call on the recommendations?

Alan

At 2021-09-01 02:20 AM, Drazek, Keith via Gnso-epdp-team wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>In my capacity as Chair of the EPDP 2A effort, I would like to share 
>my observations and assessment of our work and my consensus 
>designations on the Final Report and our recommendations to the GNSO Council.
>    * The EPDP 2A work was chartered and launched following very 
> intense community work on EPDP Phase 1 and Phase 2, both of which 
> presented significant challenges and difficult negotiations. As the 
> new Chair, I had concerns at the outset of the 2A effort that the 
> team's recent experience would make reaching consensus in this 
> phase unlikely, at best. I am pleased to note that the EPDP 2A Team 
> was able to engage and work constructively, from very different 
> starting points, to reach general consensus on the recommendations 
> and guidance contained in the Final Report.
>
>    * While the Final Report and its recommendations have the 
> general support of the EPDP 2A Team, it's important to note that 
> certain groups feel that the work did not go as far as needed, or 
> did not include sufficient detail, while other groups feel that 
> certain recommendations were not necessary. In this context, I urge 
> all readers of the EPDP 2A Final Report to also read the minority 
> statements submitted by each group, which will be appended and 
> become part of the Final Report and historical record of our work. 
> By way of example, one of the key differences of opinion among EPDP 
> 2A groups was the question of whether differentiation between legal 
> and natural person registration data should be mandatory or 
> optional, and these differences of opinion are largely unchanged by 
> the recommendations in the Final Report. Rather, the Final Report 
> text constitutes a compromise that is the best that could be 
> achieved by the group at this time under our currently allocated 
> time and scope, and it should not be read as delivering results 
> that were fully satisfactory to everyone. This underscores the 
> importance of the minority statements in understanding the full 
> context of the Final Report recommendations.
>
>    * Over the last eight months, the EPDP 2A team worked in 
> challenging circumstances, including fully remote engagement and 
> without the benefit of face-to-face interaction or dialogue. This 
> proved to be a real challenge, and one that should be acknowledged 
> in planning for future GNSO policy processes. In the experience of 
> EPDP Phase 1 and Phase 2, there is no doubt that face-to-face 
> engagement was crucial in constructively advancing the work of the 
> group. During Phase 2A, in lieu of in-person meetings, the 
> Leadership Team and Staff worked with Melissa Allgood of ICANN Org 
> to set up facilitated conversations, outside the plenary setting, 
> to try to replicate the less formal engagement of a face-to-face 
> meeting. I feel that effort was helpful in generating dialogue and 
> in bringing divergent perspectives and positions to a point where 
> consensus was possible, even if on a limited set of recommendations.
>
>    * In my assessment, I believe that the EPDP Phase 2A Final 
> Report has consensus of the EPDP Team, and each of its 
> recommendations have secured consensus. Over the last two weeks, we 
> worked through our "can't-live-with" items and I want to personally 
> thank all who contributed concrete suggestions and text edits that 
> helped us resolve remaining differences and come together. While I 
> believe we could designate the recommendations as having "Full 
> Consensus," I note that many groups have indicated that they will 
> submit minority statements, which are typically used when there are 
> dissenting views. As such, I feel that a "Consensus" designation is 
> more appropriate, which will acknowledge and make room for 
> explanatory text to be submitted outside the four corners of the 
> Final Report body to provide important context for our 
> deliberations and recommendations.
>
>To appropriately capture the dynamics of the group discussions, at a 
>high level, I propose to include the following introductory text in 
>the Final Report:
>
>While this Final Report and its recommendations have the general 
>support of the EPDP 2A Team, it is  important to note that some 
>groups felt that the work did not go as far as needed, or did not 
>include sufficient detail, while other groups felt that certain 
>recommendations were not appropriate or necessary. In this context, 
>all readers of the EPDP 2A Final Report should also read the 
>minority statements submitted by each group, which have been 
>appended and are part of the Final Report and historical record of our work.
>
>Beyond the consensus reached on the Final Report recommendations, 
>there are several areas where the EPDP 2A groups did not fully 
>agree, including whether differentiation between legal and natural 
>person registration data should be mandatory or optional, and 
>whether publication of legal person registration data was 
>appropriately balanced against the risk of inadvertent disclosure of 
>personal data associated with legal person registrations. These 
>differences of opinion and perspective are largely unchanged by the 
>recommendations in the Final Report.
>
>This Final Report constitutes a compromise that is the best that 
>could be achieved by the group at this time under our currently 
>allocated time and scope, and it should not be read as delivering 
>results that were fully satisfactory to everyone. This underscores 
>the importance of the minority statements in understanding the full 
>context of the Final Report recommendations.
>
>I would like to take this opportunity to thank all EPDP Team 
>members, alternates, support groups, and very importantly our ICANN 
>staff colleagues who contributed tirelessly to this EPDP effort over 
>the course of several years. Our Phase 2A work is the culmination of 
>the EPDP as originally chartered and made necessary by the Temporary 
>Specification. There may yet be future work needed on these 
>important issues, but I'm pleased to report that we have concluded 
>this phase and can be proud of our work to deliver the current 
>recommendations, even if the results were not fully satisfactory to 
>all. That is the nature of compromise and consensus-building, and I 
>am confident we achieved the best we could under challenging circumstances.
>
>Sincerest regards,
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of 
>your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of 
>Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the 
>Mailman link above to change your membership status or 
>configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style 
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20210901/bd7a1a86/attachment.html>