[Gnso-epdp-team] Triage Report

[farzaneh badii]

Hello Kurt and EPDP,

Below are our comments on the report.


1. It should be clarified that where NCSG indicated  "No Strong Opinion",
it solely meant a deferral and it reserves the right to discuss issues
related to those sections.

2. Please add a clarification to the following paragraph: "After the first
meeting, it was realized there would be few areas of consensus that
sections were supported as written so it was decided to not spend time
attempting to reach consensus on any section during the triage stage."

*Clarification:*

*Despite having been required by the EPDP charter to provide a* "Full
consensus support" triage report, "After the first meeting, it was realized
there would be few areas of consensus that sections were supported as
written so it was decided to not spend time attempting to reach consensus
on any section during the triage stage." * Hence this document should not
be treated as a consensus document*.

3. page, 4,"A summary chart indicating which teams supported individual
Temporary Specification sections" this has to change to:  a summary chart
indicating each *team's opinion *about each section of temp spec." The
chart really does not relay support as such. it is inclusive of support and
disagreements. so opinion might be a better word.

4. Paragraph 1, page 8: "Importantly, there was often agreement on broad
principles, but those areas of agreement are hidden in this chart where the
combination of sections into one line item or suggested minor edits
resulted in “not supporting the language as written.”
This paragraph should be removed. "Agreement on broad principles" iwithout
mentioning those principles makes it obscure. We need to either name the
broad principles (which can't happen now) or we should remove.


5.page 8, Paragraph 4: "The Registry Stakeholder Group, when disagreeing
with a section, often voiced general agreement but with certain changes
recommended."
We would like to know if the RySG stated this in a comment and if not which
methodology has been used to determine it "often" voiced "general
agreement". The more general point is that, certainly there are agreements
on some issues but the table is inconclusive in showing nuances and
agreements.


Farzaneh


On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:07 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi Kurt and All,
>
> The NCSG members of the EPDP Team are still reviewing the final version of
> the Triage report. Apologies for the late request, but would it be possible
> to postpone delivery of the report to the GNSO Council until COB, Monday 10
> September? We expect to be able to provide feedback (if any) before the
> weekend is over. I hope this isn’t too troublesome a request.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Sep 4, 2018, at 8:54 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone:
> >
> > Attached is a redline and clean version of the Triage report. There is
> no need to review this before today’s meeting.
> >
> > I have taken out all the Issue Summaries in order to simplify the report
> and amended the high-level themes in line with the comments.
> >
> > Let me know your thoughts. I plan to send this out this week.
> >
> > Kurt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> > Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> <gnso-EPDP-Triage-final-report-20180831(clean).docx><gnso-EPDP-Triage-final-report-20180831.docx>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20180910/ec01aa3b/attachment.html>