[Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted

[Ayden Férdeline]

+1 Michele

—Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 16 July 2018 10:47 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Rafik
>
> I also don’t understand why RSSAC would be interested in this and even if they are they’ll get opportunities to provide input via public comment periods etc
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> --
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
>
> Blacknight Solutions
>
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
>
> https://www.blacknight.com/
>
> http://blacknight.blog/
>
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
>
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>
> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
>
> Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
>
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>
> From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday 16 July 2018 at 01:04
> To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
> Cc: "epdp-dt at icann.org" <epdp-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted
>
> hi Heather,
>
> while I don't want to object and raise a problem for us as a group but I would like to make a point.
>
> I think we are making a GNSO (E)PDP de facto a CCWG regardless if RSSAC or ccNSO appointing representatives and I don't think this is something we intended or expect for GNSO PDP. I would like to highlight that we are setting a precedent here that will be hard to argue against in future.
>
>  I can understand for the idea to be inclusive and open the door to other SO/AC  since we chose to limit the size and participation but in fact, only GAC, SSAC and possibly ALAC expressed interest to join the EPDP and shared some of their positions.  I heard arguments about ccNSO as they may bring ccTLD operators in EU may bring their own experience(while noticing ccNSO didn't appoint any representative to RDS2 RT). I am not sure what RSSAC and so Root Server Operators can bring here as I don't think they are dealing with whois in any way.
>
> I just wanted to share my thoughts here.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le dim. 15 juil. 2018 à 19:31, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Dear DT colleagues,
>>
>> It has come to my attention that we failed to include the RSSAC in the SO/AC allocations on the DT. I have checked with the small group, who have confirmed that the RSSAC wasn't discussed there. We mentioned SSAC in the DT call last week. This makes me think that the RSSAC's absence on the team composition document is an oversight in our intense efforts. Equal treatment gives them the same as ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. I'm putting this out to the DT mailing list to check if there are any objections. If so, please raise these swiftly, as the RSSAC is already behind in terms of the invite for participants and we'll need to notify them ASAP. I'd like to give it 24 hours to be as efficient as possible here.
>>
>> Many thanks and best wishes,
>>
>> Heather
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Epdp-dt mailing list
>> Epdp-dt at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/attachments/20180716/e0626993/attachment-0001.html>