[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [ALAC] ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 Final Report

Vanda Scartezini vanda at scartezini.org
Sun Feb 17 19:53:42 UTC 2019


As government member from developing country I do had to exercitas-te diplomacy several times - the “ I have difficulty” approach sounds familiar and for me worded well in several occasions
Thanks to bing it back

Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPad
Sorry for any typos and misspellings

On 16 Feb 2019, at 18:21, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com>> wrote:

The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output.  It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do.

Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers.

So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision.  Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose  [management] Committee would help.

When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it.

Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the
issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a
statement
(https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html)
and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document.

A redline and clean version is attached.

Alan_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190217/d4e4d61e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list