[Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted

[Heather Forrest]

Thanks Ayden.

Michele, answering your question: it was brought to my attention that RSSAC
was obviously missing from the composition table.

I can confirm with Tripti and Brad that they wish to nominate participants,
but would like to be in a position to say that spots are available,
otherwise I'm asking only to say no thank you. Not optimal, and not
efficient given the time constraints.

I very much appreciate the comments made on this point, but do need to
bring us to a conclusion before time marches on.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> Hi Heather,
>
> I don't formally object to their participation; I just don't understand
> why they would want to participate. If they are invited to participate, I
> hope we can make it clear that they are neither required nor expected to
> send anyone. And perhaps it would be better to allocate them only one seat
> (with one alternate)?
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 16 July 2018 1:06 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, all, for your rapid responses.
>
> Rafik - I note you specifically stated that your point wasn't to be
> understood as an objection. Michele, Ayden, may I check with you both
> please that this is also the case for yourselves? I personally believe that
> Rafik has made an excellent point but I also note that when PDP
> participation is open, we welcome members and observers from throughout the
> community. We have the WG Guidelines as a means of differentiating the PDP
> from a CCWG here and going forward.
>
> All that said, I hesitate to inform the RSSAC unless we're all in
> agreement here that there isn't grounds to object.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Heather
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +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/bc672eea/attachment.html>