<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
ALAC will be able to cover both days.<br>
At 05/01/2019 09:18 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Kurt, <br>
Just a head's up that for the ALAC, it may not be possible to have an Alternate available for both sessions. We're still working on it, but I thought it right to alert you to the possibility.<br>
It might be possible to group together topics that are not of great concern to the ALAC for one of the six meetings. I'll look at that tomorrow.<br>
I note that your plan puts particular pressure on the BC, IPC and ISPC who were only allocated a single Alternate over their two Members.<br>
On Ayden's "Stakeholder Group" concern, I presumed that this was really a lower-case stakeholder (as in multistakeholder model), capitalized just because it was a title.<br>
At 05/01/2019 07:51 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><br>
That is the rub isnít it?
I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every
measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work
left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again.
I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently,
so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase
our capacity even more.
One assumption I made was that I donít think we can create small teams
without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the
representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group
determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any
time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates,
that would restrict us to two groups.
I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of
getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two
groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group
will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is
different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council.
I donít know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of
alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be
to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be
received in time for meetings in three days' time.
I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group.
It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach.
Let me know your position on it.
Thanks and best regards,
> On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Fťrdeline
at ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
> Thank you for putting forward this proposal.
> I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal,
the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and
ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as
a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members
and the CSG nine members in the process which follows.
> As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO
Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the
various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe
strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and
for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see
certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to
their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful
balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date.
> I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks!
> Best wishes,
> Original Message
> On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz
at kjpritz.com</a>> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone:
>> The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last
meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for
reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as
Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over
the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or
suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual
operating mode but, I believe is necessary.
>> This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or
standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required
to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Markís emailed
suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different
possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation
from the team.
>> Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in
the very near future.
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team" eudora="autourl">