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

Mon Jul 2 19:59:06 UTC 2018

Paul,
Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of
representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each
constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from
each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from
Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in
total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I
don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed
seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and
there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any
kind of fairness. Not even remotely.
If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other
stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too
astounding, I am sorry to say.
Warm regards,
Tatiana

On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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] *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://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
> 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/fbfd4a91/attachment.html>