[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation

Thu Jul 30 19:40:05 UTC 2020

At 2020-07-30 03:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>Hi all,
>Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope itâ?Ts 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?

YES. ALAC OBJECTS. I am sorry if DOES NOT SUPPORT 
was not taken to be equivalent to OBJECT.

>If so, based on this and other responses, why 
>donâ?Tt we follow Volkerâ?Ts recommendation and 
>just take the 4 recommendations that Alan 
>mentioned out of the report entirely.

The report makes it clear that the SSAD 
recommendations are linked. Removing auomation , 
evolution and financial aspects does not leave 
something that makes any sense. It is a glorified 
ticketing system and one could buy/build one of those with a LOT less trouble.

>I for one think that the entire exercise is 
>missing the point if we canâ?Tt 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, itâ?Ts going to be done elsewhere :-(

What "elsewhere" did you have in mind?

>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 
> shouldnÃ¢?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 didnÃ¢?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 doesnÃ¢?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.