[Gnso-epdp-team] Final report and consensus designation
Mueller, Milton L
milton at gatech.edu
Mon Jul 27 16:43:29 UTC 2020
Dear Rafik and all other EPDP members
NCSG agrees with almost all of the consensus designations that were made in this document. There are two exceptions, one important, one minor:
1. Recommendation 20
Recommendation 20 concerns the City field. The Bird and Bird memo made a very strong argument for redacting the city field. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105386422<https://slack-redir.net/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fpages%2Fviewpage.action%3FpageId%3D105386422&v=3>. We don’t know what changed since phase 1 on this topic. No one among the NCSG participants recalls agreeing to any such change. Unless the language remains "MUST" rather than "MAY" the NCSG would have to withdraw its support for that recommendation.
2. Recommendation 7
As noted in my previous email we were willing to join RYSG in their lack of support for what used to be item "(iii) obligations applicable to DSPs" and especially the affiliated footnote. Now it appears that the language has been modified in a way that is acceptable to RYSG. If the footnote is deleted, we can have full consensus on this item; if not, NCSG will not support it and we will only have "consensus."
That concludes the input of NCSG on the consensus designations Rafik sent out last week.
Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project<https://internetgovernance.org>
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 6:29 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Final report and consensus designation
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 .
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team