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

[Tatiana Tropina]

Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long
emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we
will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of
imbalance in any book.
Not balanced, really.
Cheers,
Tanya

On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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_bL
>> gFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/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/20180702/296885ad/attachment-0001.html>