[Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus Designations

Ayden Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com
Wed Feb 20 11:52:58 UTC 2019

Thank you, Kurt, for your work here. I know it is not always easy to assess consensus, and there are many different definitions floating around.

However, I strongly agree with Milton's comments on this matter. On page 12 of our charter it states, "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective GNSO SGs and Cs at Council level ... the CPH, NCSG, or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus."

Our charter is very clear - we must respect the "current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council" when measuring consensus. Thanks.

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:01 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Kurt
>> I chose not to conflate the number of groups with the voting scheme of the GNSO Council. I think that is the province of the Council, i.e., discussion at the Council level and the voting scheme will come into play there as items with “Strong Support" are considered.
> Sorry Kurt, but that’s not your call. As chair you can designate consensus levels but you do not have the authority to redefine the groups upon which consensus determinations are based.
> The CSG and the NCSG both have 6 members on this EPDP team because they are both equivalent stakeholder groups in the chartering process. This was a point of considerable discussion in the formation of the epdp and the result is not something you can toy with. Doing so leaves you and the whole process subject to legitimacy and bias challenges.
> The fact that CSG’s 3 constituencies insist on independent representation is a choice they have made and can make but it does not change their status as a single SG, a single group for the purposes of consensus determinations.
> I am sure you don’t want our painstaking work product to be further delayed by procedural and legitimacy challenges, including an independent review process, but I assure you that is what will happen if you try to disenfranchise an SG by double or triple counting the constituents of another SG.
> Talk tomorrow.
>> The report will necessarily list those in opposition to t certain recommendation. Please check the attached to determine support (or the opposite) is accurately reflected. During the call tomorrow, we will check to see if any levels of support have changed based on the discussion and email exchanges.
>> Please write back with questions.
>> Kurt
>> <Consensus Designations - 19 February 2019(k2).docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190220/1e58a1d5/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list