[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation

Thu Jul 30 19:24:29 UTC 2020

Hi all,
Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope it’s just me.

The consensus call does not ask for support, but for objections. 

You are now saying that the 4 recommendations you specify are not supported by ALAC. That is irrelevant. There is no need for us to support the recommendations. Are you saying that ALAC objects? 

If so, based on this and other responses, why don’t we follow Volker’s recommendation and just take the 4 recommendations that Alan mentioned out of the report entirely. 

I for one think that the entire exercise is missing the point if we can’t find rough consensus for some basic features, but maybe - if we do not take the recommendations off the table here - or even the entire set of recommendations as a consequence, it’s going to be done elsewhere :-(

Best,
Thomas

> Am 30.07.2020 um 18:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:
> 
> For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC):
> 
> 6.2 Priority Levels
> 9 Automation of the SSAD
> 14 Financial Sustainability
> 18 Evolution mechanism
> 
> You may indicate support for the other recommendations.
> 
> The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant.
> 
> As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report.
> 
> PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
>> 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 shouldnâ?Tt 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 didnâ?Tt 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 doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document;
>>        name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx"
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>>        filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx"
>> Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0>
>> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> 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.