[Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
kurt at kjpritz.com
Sun Jan 6 01:01:12 UTC 2019
Thanks, Milton. I share your concern regarding the non-trivial effort to making small groups effective.
One approach to avoid re-litigsation might be for each rep to take issues back to their stakeholder group between the Tuesday and Thursday meetings when necessary to get a confirmation on approach. Still the right combination of boldness and judgment is required.
I welcome your (and anyones’) review of the categorization. Best judgment was used in their formulation but there was no science to it. Additional looks can do nothing but improve the distribution.
> On Jan 5, 2019, at 10:09 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> A quick response from me: I think in general terms this is a good approach - if all the EPDP members enter into it in the right spirit.
> In terms of deference to the small groups - I think a key to success is that small groups must be clever enough to recognize and flag anything controversial enough to require consideration by the plenary. Just as we don't want the plenary to relitigate what the small groups do, we also don't want the small groups to pre-empt decisions that should be made by the plenary. In case of doubt, kick it upstairs to the plenary. Otherwise we WILL end up re-litigating a lot of things.
> I agree with your categorization of the purposes, but haven't had time to review how you categorized all the recommendations. I'll do that as soon as I can. If you don't hear from me by end Sunday (Monday morning for some of you) I have no objection.
> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:04:54 PM
> To: GNSO EPDP
> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment
> Hi Everyone:
> The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary.
> This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team.
> Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future.
> Thanks and best regards,
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team