<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">All, sorry it’s me again. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Rafik just pointed out to me that he has written about conditional support in his e-mail. That is true and I should have mentioned that. However, conditional support is nothing that GNSO rules know as a term and the cautious interpretation thereof by the Chair is also nothing that the rules know. We will see how this plays out, but </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- I would prefer for objections and support to be unambiguous so that the chair’s designation is made easier (and less prone to be complained about) </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- conditional support might be interpreted less cautiously as objections, particularly if there is more movement on the level of support before the deadline.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Thomas<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert <<a href="mailto:epdp@gdpr.ninja" class="">epdp@gdpr.ninja</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Rafik, all,<div class="">I hope you forgive me for writing a few lines in my personal capacity. These are not ISPCP comments, but I will point out that the ISPCP does not object to any of the recommendations in the spirit of collaboration and to support the work we have done. Are we happy with everything in the report, certainly not, but we are where we are. We know this is a challenging topic from a legal and a policy perspective and we all have to trust in the system to be improved over time when there will be more trust in such system and less areas that are unknown.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Looking at the number of objections is quite shocking. We only have full consensus on 1 recommendation. A few quick points:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. How shall a system be implemented / operationalised absent a recommendation on financial sustainability? We have divergence there, which means that we have nothing for the Council or ICANN Org to lean.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. Accuracy was taken off the table by the GNSO Council, so I am not sure whether it is adequate wo withhold support for recommendations because the accuracy part has not been worked on. Many ISPCP members have an interest in the accuracy discussion, but that will be dealt with elsewhere.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3. Recommendation 18 is bordering divergence. The system will only get better if there is a good process for making it better within the boundaries of what can be done under GNSO rules. I think the compromise that was struck is a good basis for that. Changes to the system will be even harder if there is no good support for Rec. 18. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">4. Question for Rafik: How will you deal with conditional support? As far as I know the rules, there is nothing describing conditional support. Will you consider these as objections? That would change the landscape, in particular with respect to Rec. 18.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for reading thus far. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Thomas</div><div class=""> </div><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" class="">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><span id="m_3214363748942014130gmail-docs-internal-guid-fde80f77-7fff-c9f2-6c0e-732da0422d47" class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">Hi all,</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">emphasize</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""> one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">unfortunately</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""> I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""> Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldn’t be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didn’t envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">bound</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class=""> to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesn’t agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">Best Regards,</span></div><br class=""><div style="line-height: 1.2; text-align: justify; margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt;" class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; background-color: transparent; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;" class="">Rafik</span></div></span><br class=""></div>
<span id="cid:f_kd8ik4um0" class=""><Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" class="">Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">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.</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>