[Gnso-epdp-team] Requested Agenda Items for Upcoming EPDP F2F

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Mon Jan 14 20:02:50 UTC 2019

Kurt, I appreciate your attempt to clarify how the end game consensus calling will work.
Here is my input, and I am saying this partly as a Professor in a public policy program as well as someone with a lot of experience in ICANN.

The real key to reaching consensus (or not) in this PDP is not going to be a matter of nose-counting among SGs and ACs. The key to reaching consensus is for every member of this group to understand clearly what will happen if there is no consensus. Really bad consequences of non-agreement can easily push certain holdouts to accept things that they may not fully prefer. Likewise, if non-agreement has very little impact on certain groups, or actually makes things better for them, then you can expect those groups to not bend.

Let me give you an example.

Let’s suppose that non-agreement on a final report means that the temp spec as it currently stands remains in place indefinitely. This means public Whois redacts everything that is now redacted, disclosure requests occur on a registrar-by-registrar basis, and we have no firm set of purposes to wave in front of the data protection authorities.

How would our different SG’s and AC’s react to that eventuality? Is that what you want? If not, perhaps bend a little on a few things to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Here’s another scenario. Let’s suppose that non-agreement on a final report means that ICANN org will simply take over the policy process and issue another unilateral diktat, formed out of private consultations with whoever lobbies it the hardest behind the scenes.

How would our different SG’s and AC’s react to that eventuality? Is that what you want? If not, perhaps give on a few things to make sure it doesn’t happen.

My point is this: there is no point in discussing consensus in purely procedural terms. What really matters is the alternative to some form of agreement on a policy to replace the temp spec. I think if you and perhaps ICANN management can clearly spell out what are the consequences of a fully divided outcome that might actually help us pull together. Of course, it is also possible that it will encourage some shrewd, calculating types to pull away and pull apart, but I suspect that the shrewdest and most calculating among us are already doing that anyway, so we may as well make it open and explicit.

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

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.

Thank you,

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.

Many thanks!


Kristina Rosette
Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains
rosettek at amazon.com<mailto:rosettek at amazon.com> | 703.407.1354

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190114/4577c734/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list