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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Kurt 
Seems you didn’t understand Ayden’s point. I’ll be more direct. 

Please stop confusing constituencies with SGs. Constituencies are subunits of SGs. Representation (in the council and on ePDP) is based on SGs not constituencies. So are consensus calls, which is why you need to get this straight. 

BC and IPC are two of the three constituencies in the CSG. The other is the ISPC. Each has a seat on the ePDP. Thus, with 3 CSG members of the ePDP the CSG can cover all three small groups. Or with 1 rep and one alternate they could have two, in which case the NCSG would expect to also have two. 

Is that clear now? I’d appreciate it if you could confirm your understanding of this. 

Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology

> On Jan 5, 2019, at 19:51, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> 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,
> 
> Kurt
> 
> 
>> On Jan 5, 2019, at 3:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <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,
>> 
>> Ayden
>> 
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On Friday, January 4, 2019 11:04 PM, Kurt Pritz <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,
>>> 
>>> Kurt
>>> 
>>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team