[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation
epdp at gdpr.ninja
Thu Jul 30 12:25:03 UTC 2020
All, sorry it’s me again.
Rafik just pointed out to me that he has written about conditional support in his e-mail. That is true and I should have mentioned that. However, conditional support is nothing that GNSO rules know as a term and the cautious interpretation thereof by the Chair is also nothing that the rules know. We will see how this plays out, but
- I would prefer for objections and support to be unambiguous so that the chair’s designation is made easier (and less prone to be complained about)
- conditional support might be interpreted less cautiously as objections, particularly if there is more movement on the level of support before the deadline.
> Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>:
> Hi Rafik, all,
> I hope you forgive me for writing a few lines in my personal capacity. These are not ISPCP comments, but I will point out that the ISPCP does not object to any of the recommendations in the spirit of collaboration and to support the work we have done. Are we happy with everything in the report, certainly not, but we are where we are. We know this is a challenging topic from a legal and a policy perspective and we all have to trust in the system to be improved over time when there will be more trust in such system and less areas that are unknown.
> Looking at the number of objections is quite shocking. We only have full consensus on 1 recommendation. A few quick points:
> 1. How shall a system be implemented / operationalised absent a recommendation on financial sustainability? We have divergence there, which means that we have nothing for the Council or ICANN Org to lean.
> 2. Accuracy was taken off the table by the GNSO Council, so I am not sure whether it is adequate wo withhold support for recommendations because the accuracy part has not been worked on. Many ISPCP members have an interest in the accuracy discussion, but that will be dealt with elsewhere.
> 3. Recommendation 18 is bordering divergence. The system will only get better if there is a good process for making it better within the boundaries of what can be done under GNSO rules. I think the compromise that was struck is a good basis for that. Changes to the system will be even harder if there is no good support for Rec. 18.
> 4. Question for Rafik: How will you deal with conditional support? As far as I know the rules, there is nothing describing conditional support. Will you consider these as objections? That would change the landscape, in particular with respect to Rec. 18.
> Thanks for reading thus far.
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>> 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,
>> <Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx>_______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team