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

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi Donna,

Thanks for your comments.

I believe that membership for this EPDP should follow the distribution of the Council, with equal parts representation of the CPH and the NCPH. Any other membership composition will not be "balanced representation."

As this is a GNSO-initiated EPDP, I think that the majority of the membership should be from the GNSO, which is why I support limiting participation from the other SO/ACs (and this would achieve substantial cost savings, as fewer travellers would need to be brought to face-to-face meetings). However I also recognise the political reality that the GAC wants to be involved in this process, which is why I was exceptionally okay with them having 3 members participate.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 2 July 2018 9:29 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar> 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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180702/612f253d/attachment-0001.html>