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

Mon Jul 2 19:49:14 UTC 2018

Thanks Tatiana,

We did not agree to cut down the representation of each of the IPC, BC, and ISPCP to 1.  It has always been 3.

Best,
Paul

From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>
Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

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<mailto: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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0>

We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later.

Donna

From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org<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<mailto: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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d-5FbLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DMOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw%26r%3DCwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g%26m%3DwNYXG-kMw8XvXkMeaPiTyen9_0Lc1xtvZQdiNNvP_5c%26s%3Dyw0wvypCgsLqYKZDIuVTXgRfQ34yKDbI6nZEO1idk8U%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=YQ804Ws4NDYnJptDPUyXmnCweQMBd9gd7n7F%2FZxHQLg%3D&reserved=0>.

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<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180702/2c059d0a/attachment-0001.html>