[Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report
Brian.King at markmonitor.com
Tue Dec 3 17:07:35 UTC 2019
In that case I won’t “go so far” to keep our agreement intact 😊
The word “never” seems troubling to me, so if you could help me understand the last part of your last sentence a bit better please:
Are you saying that even if the DPB writes to the Strawberries and says “yes, it’s possible to isolate liability for decision-making centrally with ICANN Org”, it would still be impossible for us to come to consensus on the centralized decision-making model? (ignoring how (un)likely we think that response is)
Brian J. King
Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs
T +1 443 761 3726
Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:26 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report
Ha, you spoiled the agreement, Brian. ;-)
>If I can go so far, I suggest that the initial report indicate that we are
> working primarily toward the “centralized” model pending crucial input from the DPB.
This is not our understanding at all. One reason I want to eliminate the “no SSAD” option is that I think it confuses the issue of centralizing requests, which can be done and can gain consensus, versus centralizing the decision maker, which I think is deeply problematic and will never gain consensus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team