[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Thu Jul 30 10:07:24 UTC 2020

Hi all,

Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline
your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised
the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.

I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus
designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish
attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I
would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional
support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously
interpreted them as opposition for several reasons.  Of course, if the ALAC
disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.

I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering
such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP
WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of
publication and report submission and shouldn’t be amended when moving to
GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council
decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and
policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my
communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the
report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their
minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration
made to GNSO council but procedures didn’t envision such a situation of
having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role
as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot
guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.

On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can
respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On
recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG
and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have
concluded that BC doesn’t agree to drop the footnote and as result I have
taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.

Best Regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200730/3f001671/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 25946 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200730/3f001671/Consensusdesignationtable-30July2020-0001.docx>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list