[Gnso-epdp-team] Requested Agenda Items for Upcoming EPDP F2F
Mueller, Milton L
milton at gatech.edu
Mon Jan 14 19:42:44 UTC 2019
Kurt, and all EPDP members
I will have some more thorough comments about this in a bit, but I am not understanding a crucial sentence in the text and am hoping you can clear it up for me. You wrote:
There might be a case for Consensus designation if one Stakeholder Group and one Supporting Organization indicated non-support.)
I assume that this is a typo and by “Supporting Organization” you mean “Advisory Committee”???
FYI, there is only one Supporting Organization represented on this EPDP, the GNSO. If the GNSO, which includes 4 SGs, does not support something then ALL SG’s don’t support it.
From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 8:55 AM
To: EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Requested Agenda Items for Upcoming EPDP F2F
Thanks Kristine and Marc:
In response to your request regarding the process for Consensus calls, please consider the attached. The principles and process laid out is meant to take into account our sense of urgency balanced by our need for due process.
While the Leadership and Support Teams have discussed this issue at length over the past several days, we have not come to agreement on approach. Wanting to get back to you, I have written to you with my own take (but incorporating several requirements from the Support team and others with whom I have consulted).
We’ll continue to discuss this with the Support Team and refine this thinking. I also want to hear your views and question as some additional clarity is required. I think it best if we can continue this discussion on email rather than take substantive discussion time from the team.
Thanks and best regards,
On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>> wrote:
I support Kristina’s request and want to expand on item #2 relating to when and how consensus will be determined. For anyone not familiar, Section 3.6 of the GNSO working group guidelines deals specifically with this topic.
By my read a lot is left to the chair as to how to determine and designate the level of consensus for each position. Given the current timeline to publish the phase 1 final report, working group members need to know in very short order what are each of the positions, how will the level of support be determined and what designation will be given for each position.
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina via Gnso-epdp-team
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 3:38 PM
To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] Requested Agenda Items for Upcoming EPDP F2F
I’m writing to request that 3 specific items be included in the agenda for our upcoming F2F next week:
1. Discuss and develop recommendation for addressing the period of time between the Temporary Specification’s May 25 expiration and implementation of the remaining EPDP WG policy recommendations approved by the Board;
2. When and how the EPDP WG will conduct/hold its consensus calls; and
3. Quick review and disposition of all the items left in the “parking lot” thus far.
Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains
rosettek at amazon.com<mailto:rosettek at amazon.com> | 703.407.1354
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team