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

Thu Jul 5 10:30:06 UTC 2018

Thanks Marika.
The BC would still advocate for 2 (and 1 alternate) rather than 1 member, so 6 + 3 NCSG & 6 + 3 CSG, to ensure both practicality and that we have the best possible expertise actively inputting to this vital work. We don’t think that would make the team too unwieldy, but we do think it would help all of us to manage this heavy lift in the most realistic and beneficial way.
Best
Marie

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 11:26 AM
To: philippe.fouquart at orange.com; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Thanks, Marie and Philippe. I’ve added this as a proposed compromise to the EPDP Team Composition google doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit). Of course, input from others on whether this would be an acceptable compromise or other proposed compromises are encouraged.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart at orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:08
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>" <epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Marie,
All,

Thanks for this. The ISPCP would be happy with an option of 6+3 alternates if that helps us out of the weeds and move forward. The caveat you associate this with is important, it was our understanding that members were there to voice their respective constituency’s positions and that numbers wouldn’t affect the decision making process (and speaking personally that’s why numbers shouldn’t matter)

The rationale being also for us to reduce the overall size of the team and make it more manageable, it should not be read as “3 spare seats to go for the ACs”.

Regards,

Philippe

From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:36 PM
To: Tatiana Tropina; McGrady, Paul D.
Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

All,

Many thanks for the interesting debate below.

The BC would be happy with parity of membership between the CSG and NCSG of course – preferably 6 full members and 3 alternates each. We’d see that as 2+1 per constituency in the CSG, and however the NCSG wants to cut its own cloth! That would not in any way affect the consensus, as regardless the number of physical team members, it would still be one vote per constituency.

For clarity, my comments last week were absolutely not about affecting the consensus, but about ensuring that in the CSG we all had equal voices (for the different perspectives/expertise) and that every single brave soul who signs up for this isn’t fired by their employers, or drops of exhaustion, or both, if they’re spending 30hrs per week to find the best workable solution for the entire community.

Thanks and have a great evening!

Marie

From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:06 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

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<mailto: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<mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM

To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>; epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>; epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
Cc: epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto: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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fdocs.google.com-252Fdocument-252Fd-252F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d-5FbLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI-252Fedit-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636661573307770449-26sdata-3DdEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VyQTQk8TxiI5YRbcG0TfyUqvEWUxcb1jDXWRr9MtPCI&s=HWS4YZwykuE4ZBMAN9OwSkM4nXk-dPu4BahIY9sqPM4&e=>

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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fdocs.google.com-5Fdocument-5Fd-5F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d-2D5FbLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI-5Fedit-2D3Fusp-2D3Dsharing-2526d-253DDwMGaQ-2526c-253DMOptNlVtIETeDALC-5FlULrw-2526r-253DCwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT-5FQUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g-2526m-253DwNYXG-2DkMw8XvXkMeaPiTyen9-5F0Lc1xtvZQdiNNvP-5F5c-2526s-253Dyw0wvypCgsLqYKZDIuVTXgRfQ34yKDbI6nZEO1idk8U-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636661573307770449-26sdata-3DYQ804Ws4NDYnJptDPUyXmnCweQMBd9gd7n7F-252FZxHQLg-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VyQTQk8TxiI5YRbcG0TfyUqvEWUxcb1jDXWRr9MtPCI&s=jL4blrSKAyUXbJ4ThVQEj9lE15xekBNwlhIw84GV0Wg&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

_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt at icann.org<mailto:Epdp-dt at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmm.icann.org-252Fmailman-252Flistinfo-252Fepdp-2Ddt-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cpmcgrady-2540winston.com-257C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e-257C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5-257C0-257C0-257C636661573307770449-26sdata-3DhVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed-252B-252B86iQG-252B0kso4-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=VyQTQk8TxiI5YRbcG0TfyUqvEWUxcb1jDXWRr9MtPCI&s=-hfhfADcW5FjNsXI4AQpWJTP1BPY1coBaBxJ1VHBqmk&e=>

________________________________
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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180705/92bc7721/attachment-0001.html>