[Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

[Tatiana Tropina]

Dear Donna, dear all,
I agree with Ayden on this - I thought we figured out in Panama that it was
a math mistake and IPC+BC+ISPCP should have one member each (3 members from
SG in total). Otherwise, the imbalance in SG representation is astounding -
CSG will have 9 reps and other SGs only 3 (including Rr and Ry SGs). I
understand that this came from initial counting mistake, but this should be
fixed as soon as possible. I thought it wasn't even a subject of discussion
as it was a simple counting mistake made because of drafting on the fly.
I won't be able to attend the call on the 5th as I will be on the plane at
the time of the call, but I hope this bad math will get fixed as soon as
possible and won't be a subject of discussion on the call. It's not even a
discussion about the balanced representation anymore, the fact that it was
a math mistake was accepted by the membership composition team lead in
Panama, and why it has got further into the document is beyond me.
Warm regards,
Tatiana

On 2 July 2018 at 21:29, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt at icann.org>
wrote:

> Ayden and Stephanie,
>
>
>
> I understand your concerns about representation and that it is
> inconsistent with current GNSO Council norms, but I wonder if it is
> possible for you to consider this through a different lens. Because we
> decided not to have an open call for members in order to keep the size of
> the team manageable and more responsive we need to come up with balanced
> representation. I don't believe, for example, that reducing the numbers for
> the collective CSG and NCSG provides an appropriate balance with the CPH. I
> also don't understand the rationale to have 3 GAC members, but reduce the
> number for the other SO/ACs.
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bL
> gFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit
>
>
>
> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later.
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
> *From:* Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Ayden
> Férdeline
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM
> *To:* epdp-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must
> Have Parity in Numbers
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I hope that I am mis-reading the table in this section of the charter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d-5FbLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=wNYXG-kMw8XvXkMeaPiTyen9_0Lc1xtvZQdiNNvP_5c&s=yw0wvypCgsLqYKZDIuVTXgRfQ34yKDbI6nZEO1idk8U&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> From what I see, it has been proposed that the Commercial Stakeholder
> Group will have 9 members on the EPDP, whereas all other Stakeholder Groups
> will have 3 members. This is fundamentally unfair and we require parity.
>
>
>
> If this is not an error, I would like to know based on what rationale it
> was thought to allocate 9 membership slots to the CSG while all other
> Stakeholder Groups have only 3 members.
>
>
>
> At the NCPH level, it is essential that there be parity in membership
> numbers between the CSG and the NCSG.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> _______________________________________________
> Epdp-dt mailing list
> Epdp-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180702/d2fc962a/attachment.html>