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

Mon Jul 2 21:06:18 UTC 2018

Thanks, Paul, for your constructive suggestion. We are working on this
"call for consensus language" bit now on the level of NCSG, and we hope to
come back to the list with the proposed language shortly (sorry, different
time zones). Hope we will be able to reconcile the differences.
Cheers,
Tanya

On 2 July 2018 at 22:53, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:

> Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward.  I’m for strengthening the
> language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the
> ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate.  How can we
> improve the language?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM
>
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
> *Cc:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; epdp-dt at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups
> Must Have Parity in Numbers
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened
> in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was
> supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each
> SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even
> refer to it), all we left with is:
>
>
>
> "*For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and
> respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council,
> the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of
> the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and
> ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and  NCSG
> or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must
> not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus*".
>
>
>
> While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the
> imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of
> assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some
> way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will
> suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not
> implemented.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be
> rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer
> description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what
> the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a
> consensus call.
>
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Tanya
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tatiana,
>
>
>
> We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a
> little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later.  As
> we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to
> staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t
> fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago).
> That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done.  Your
> concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that
> you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at
> Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice
> each, not according to the # of people each C has.  It is hard to recap
> what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this
> again-raised point.  In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC,
> BC and ISPs is any sort of solution.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM
> *To:* McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
> *Cc:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; epdp-dt at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups
> Must Have Parity in Numbers
>
>
>
> 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_
> 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/20180702/2a8597d2/attachment-0001.html>