[Gnso-epdp-team] Final report and consensus designation

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Jul 24 15:46:46 UTC 2020

Hi Rafik,

The ALAC is still in the process of assessing our 
level of support, but at this point, it would be 
reasonable to indicate our lack of agreement with:

6.2 Priority Levels

9 Automation of the SSAD

14 Financial Sustainability - We are coming to 
the realization that adherence to this 
recommendation may end up with pricing so high as 
to render the SSAD unusable by many of those in its target audience.

18 Evolution mechanism

This does not imply that as we further review the 
new document, there may be changes to the level of consensus of the ALAC.

We also note that since the SSAD recommendation 
are linked, lack of support for critical 
recommendations implies lack of support for the overall report.


At 2020-07-24 06:29 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

>Hi all,
>We are reaching today an important milestone of 
>our long journey. As promised, I am sharing with 
>you the consensus designation I made for the policy recommendations.
>Following the GNSO Working Group Guidelines 
>provision, I am sharing here the first iteration 
>of the consensus designation. Similar to phase 
>1, I am using a table to identify the consensus 
>designation for each policy recommendation I 
>believe has been achieved. The table also 
>indicates which groups do not appear to support 
>a recommendation or a part of it. The 
>designation is based on the outcome of our 
>latest deliberations this week and I made the 
>assessment with the “cannot live with” as an 
>indicator or where groups have indicated 
>directly that they do not support certain 
>recommendations, to select what I think is the appropriate level of consensus.
>We managed to resolve the majority of “cannot 
>live with” items identified, but unfortunately 
>we were not able to do that for all. I have used 
>those “cannot live with” items that we were 
>not able to resolve as an indicator. I want also 
>to highlight that in certain cases the “cannot 
>live with” items went to a very specific part 
>of the recommendation and I have taken a 
>cautious approach and assumed that this meant a 
>group is not able to live with the whole 
>recommendation for the purpose of the consensus 
>designation. Groups can of course correct that 
>if it is not an accurate assumption. The 
>document includes also the relevant provisions 
>in the GNSO working group guidelines.
>As mentioned previously, this is an iterative 
>process but also not an endless one. So I would 
>like to ask each group to indicate if they 
>believe the consensus designation is not the 
>correct one or the group has been incorrectly 
>identified or not identified as not supporting 
>certain recommendations. Please do that asap to 
>help me to review the received input and make 
>the necessary updates in a timely manner. I am 
>hoping that this process will be straightforward 
>and we all come swiftly to a general 
>understanding on the consensus designations. The 
>period of 24 to 29 July is for the EPDP Team to 
>respond to consensus designations and share its 
>feedback. For ease of use, you can use the table to share your input.
>We tried our best to revolve concerns, reach 
>agreements within the limits and constraints we 
>are dealing with. The product is not perfect but 
>it is the result of a consensus process and a 
>lot of compromise. Although it would have been 
>nice if the outcome of PDPs could make everybody 
>happy and give everyone everything they want, 
>unfortunately this is not possible, but it is 
>important that we have a product you can accept 
>and own. This is not the time for revisions or 
>re-opening discussions but it is for finalizing 
>our deliverable. So let’s stay focused.
>I do believe that we did what we could do and 
>deliberated on those topics to the extent of 
>possible. I acknowledge there are disagreements 
>and concerns. As I stated during the calls, you 
>have the opportunity to get them on the record 
>through the minority statement where you can go 
>into details and explain your rationale. Even if 
>you support a consensus position, you can still 
>provide a statement to make your views heard. I 
>urge you to submit them by deadline in order to 
>be included, you don’t need to wait for the 
>29th July to do so. I recognize there may be 
>some general dissatisfaction with some wanting 
>more, others wanting less but at the end the 
>group has come and worked together on delivering 
>this report. The GNSO council will consider the 
>final report and recommendations upon reception 
>and will have to act on. Rest ensured that the 
>report will be reviewed diligently.
>I also acknowledge the frustration that some 
>have about the remaining priority 2 issues not 
>being addressed. I can reassure you that the 
>GNSO Council is looking at how, not if, to 
>address those topics in a timely manner and 
>outlining the next steps and timing. It tasked a 
>small team of councillors to come up with the proposal to be considered.
>You can find the final report here: 
><https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw>https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw .
>Finally and on a less formal note, today was 
>supposed to be the start of the Olympics game in 
>Tokyo. Many described our EPDP as a marathon, 
>definitely at an Olympic level of efforts and 
>commitment. We are so close to the finishing 
>line and we should celebrate soon the finalization of this phase.
>Best Regards,
>         name="Consensus designation table.docx"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table.docx"
>Content-ID: <f_kczzgnyk0>
>X-Attachment-Id: f_kczzgnyk0
>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the 
>website Terms of Service 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can 
>visit the Mailman link above to change your 
>membership status or configuration, including 
>unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or 
>disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200724/a4614c72/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list