[Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Mon Dec 2 16:44:05 UTC 2019

We (NCSG) will have a number of comments about the draft initial report which we hope will lead to some important modifications.
One issue jumps out at me, however, and calls for an immediate response. The report outlines three models,

1.       “Centralized”

2.       “Decentralized”

3.       “Hybrid.”

My feeling is that no one on the EPDP team supports the so-called “decentralized” model, which is really a “No SSAD” model. As far as I can tell, the group has been debating between two options, an SSAD in which ICANN alone makes the ultimate disclosure decision, and an SSAD in which the contracted party makes the ultimate disclosure decision based on policies and procedures defined and enforced by ICANN. Happy to be corrected here, but I am not aware of any SG or AC represented on the EPDP team has favored no SSAD at all.

I think it might distort public comment and dramatically exaggerate the divergence of views on EPDP for us to present #2 as a “model” that we are considering.

That being said, I have heard some CPs say that they are worried that the cost benefit ratio of an SSAD might be so unfavorable as not to justify having one. (NCSG shares these concerns, but thinks the jury is still out.) If that is the basis for the so-called “decentralized” (no SSAD) approach, then the report should not propose that as one of three “models,” it should instead propose it as a reversion to the post temp spec status quo due to the lack of a favorable cost benefit ratio.

I think the framing here matters a lot, in that we all seem to agree that standardizing and centralizing the request process would do all parties a lot of good. Why would we want the draft report to drastically understate the extent to which we have agreed on certain things?

Dr. Milton L Mueller
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 1:01 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report

Dear EPDP Team:

Please find attached the draft Initial Report.

As you review the draft, please be aware that the text highlighted in orange is still under review but has been included to give the Team a holistic idea of the Report’s status. Specifically, the orange text represents:

  1.  Text not yet reviewed by the EPDP Team;
  2.  Staff-proposed text to address comments provided on calls; or
  3.  Placeholder text where further work is underway.

As Janis noted during the Team’s last meeting, please review the draft and come prepared to Wednesday’s meeting ready to discuss the status of the draft Initial Report, with a specific focus on the readiness to publish for public comment.

We have also attached the timeline slides Berry presented during ICANN66 to remind the Team of how the date we publish the Initial Report for public comment will affect the overall project timeline.

To those celebrating: Happy Thanksgiving from the EPDP Leadership and Support Team!

Best regards,

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20191202/2041f423/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list