[Gnso-epdp-team] EPDP Review of Public Comment

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sun Jan 6 04:06:52 UTC 2019

Here is the link to the Charter Holly, see pages 11-14.  https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf

Cheers Stephanie

On 2019-01-05 22:24, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Stephanie

Please clarify what you mean by ‘alternates are actually alternates’.  The ALAC designated 4 people for the EPDP from the beginning - and all four names were supplied.  Two would be the regular attendees (Alan and Hadia) and another two (myself and Seun) would follow the processes of the group, without actually attending meetings - but all were seen - at least from ALAC’s view - as members.    This works well when the meetings are plenary.  But when the meetings are split into three different discussions, then having two of our original four as ‘members' no longer works since - by your statement - those of us who are ‘alternates’ would not be seen as members, leaving one third of the meetings without the agreed representative from each group.

So please clarify


On Jan 6, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

Hi Kurt,

I think the NCSG is perfectly happy with 3 groups.  What Ayden is trying to explain here is that we should preserve the SG balance that the GNSO Council agreed to in the Charter.  That was to reflect the same balance as exists in the Council.  SGs are SGs, constituencies are constituencies as you well know.  NCSG is slightly anomalous in that we allow non-affiliated NCSG members to join the SG as a whole.  Re the issue of having alternates...what we are insisting on here is that alternates are actually alternates, replacing full members when they are not there....not a way of adding members.

I hope this clarifies.  If some constituencies object to this approach because they are one person short of the requisite 3 members necessary to staff all three small teams, and they do not trust the other folks in their SG to represent their interests, I would suggest that we go with two groups.

I am merely jumping in here as the NCSG Chair to help clarify, I will consult the whole team to make sure this is the consensus position of our SG....but since I was our rep on the Charter drafting team at the GNSO Council,  I am pretty aware of how strongly we feel about the need to maintain GNSO Council structure in this particular PDP.

I would add that any proposals from the small groups will have to be debated in the group as a whole, so I am not sure how much time we are saving here.

Kind regards.


On 2019-01-05 19:51, Kurt Pritz wrote:

Hi Ayden:

That is the rub isn’t it?

I made this recommendation because I believe that we should take every measure, explore every option to expedite our work. There is so much work left. The increase to three groups increases our capacity by half again. I think we have demonstrated that smaller groups work more efficiently, so dividing into three groups (rather than two larger ones) will increase our capacity even more.

One assumption I made was that I don’t think we can create small teams without representation from each stakeholder group. Without the representation by each group, it is much more likely that each group determination would have to be re-discussed at the plenary level and any time saving would be lost. Therefore, if we do not include alternates, that would restrict us to two groups.

I think the bottom line is that with three groups, we have some chance of getting through a set of public comment in a timely manner; with two groups, I see no chance. In three small groups, each stakeholder group will have one representative, and the NCSG will have two. This is different than the original ratios as allocated by the GNSO Council.

I don’t know if it is within my remit as chair to require this use of alternates in the name of acheiving our objectives. One remedy would be to ask the GNSO Council for their guidance but we all doubt that could be received in time for meetings in three days' time.

I prefer to leave it to your stakeholder group.

It is my request that the NCSG approve this approach.

Let me know your position on it.

Thanks and best regards,


On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com><mailto:icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

Hi Kurt,

Thank you for putting forward this proposal.

I do not wish to split hairs, but on page three of your proposal, the table lists 'Stakeholder Groups' and then lists the BC, IPC, and ISPSC (sic), who are GNSO Constituencies. The NCSG is correctly listed as a Stakeholder Group. Yet your approach would give the NCSG three members and the CSG nine members in the process which follows.

As you may remember, when chartering this working group the GNSO Council went to great efforts to ensure the membership composition of the various Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies was balanced. I believe strongly that we must preserve this balance, even in the small teams, and for that reason I also object to the first ground rule which would see certain interest groups able to bring in an alternate in addition to their members to participate in this process. This disrupts the careful balance in membership composition that has guided our work to date.

I ask, and hope, that this can be revised. Thanks!

Best wishes,


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

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<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190106/1985e21d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list