[CPWG] GAC ICANN68 Communique

[Alan Greenberg]

That's only 1/3 of the NCPH. But don't forget the SSAC which does 
have a bit of clout.

We did formally endorse the last GAC statement which was 
substantially the same as the EPDP part of the Communique.

There are other parts of the Communique where we may not be in quite 
the same lock-step. Haven't really looked at it from that perspective.

Alan

At 2020-06-29 08:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 20:07, Greg Shatan 
><<mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>I think the only groups that are happy with the EPDP process are the 
>Contracted Parties
>
>
>Too often in ICANN that's often enough to get something through. A 
>concerted opposition by nearly everyone else (NCPH + ALAC+GAC) means 
>the public interest has a fighting chance.
>
>I suggest that a small item in the next ALAC meeting include a 
>formal endorsement of the GAC position if it's as aligned with ours 
>as Alan says.
>
>- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200629/7f08d92a/attachment.html>