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

[Alex Deacon]

Kurt,

Thanks for sending this doc to the team.   This is an important topic and
we feel the language needs to be tightened up a bunch.

See attached redline with our input and revisions.

Thanks.
Alex


___________
*Alex Deacon*
Cole Valley Consulting
alex at colevalleyconsulting.com
+1.415.488.6009



On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:55 AM Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

> 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,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:25 PM, Anderson, Marc <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.
>
>
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf
>
> 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,
> Marc
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-epdp-team <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>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] Requested Agenda Items for
> Upcoming EPDP F2F
>
> All,
>
> 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!
>
> K
>
> Kristina Rosette
> Senior Corporate Counsel, IP – Domains
> rosettek at amazon.com | 703.407.1354
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190114/87cba913/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consensus calls - IPC Input and Revisions.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16561 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190114/87cba913/Consensuscalls-IPCInputandRevisions-0001.docx>