[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jul 30 23:02:40 UTC 2020 

I'll be rash (or stupid) enough to try to answer.

I think that looking at it from the other side is 
useful. If the GNSO adopts these recommendations 
(either because all the dissenters flip or it 
decides to adopt recommendations with 
non-consensus support, AND the Board decides that 
it should go ahead (despite the cost, the 
potential LONG implementation time, and the 
belief of many that it will not meet their needs, 
then that's the end game. With "something" in 
place or planned, there is no way the GNSO (with 
3/4 SGs basically supporting it) would we revisit this again in our life-times.

If it fails to proceed, the problems we now have 
are still there. Perhaps as the BC/IPC predict, 
there may be legislative alternatives. Perhaps if 
all this would be was a glorified ticketing 
system, then we should just build a ticketing 
system. Then at least we have statistics...

Perhaps the Board will decide that it needs to 
understand WHY we are in this position. It didn't 
just magically appear in a puff of smoke - there 
have been plenty of warning signs.

Alan

At 2020-07-30 06:13 PM, Becky Burr wrote:
>I'd love to hear reactions to Volker's question 
>(If the requestor side does not see this as an 
>improvement over the status quo, what are we 
>left with? What is the purpose in building this 
>SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do 
>not seem to want it?) .  How should the Board see this?
>
>On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:26 AM Volker Greimann 
><<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net> wrote:
>Conditional support is support in my book.
>
>In my personal opinion, I should again stress 
>that as CP we are proposing to build this system 
>for the requestor side, not for ourselves. If 
>the requestor side does not see this as an 
>improvement over the status quo, what are we 
>left with? What is the purpose in building this 
>SSAD if those who are set to benefit from it do not seem to want it?
>
>We seem to have divergence on Priority Levels, 
>SLAs and Financial Sustainability. So are we 
>better off with a system without these and 
>should strike the recommendations altogether?
>As to financing, in the end, we will still have 
>to figure out how this system is financed and I 
>doubt the solution ICANN comes up with will be 
>any different than what we have proposed, 
>especially since I doubt we will ever agree to 
>registrants or CPs paying for this. The general 
>principle of whoever orders the music shall pay 
>for the band will always apply.
>
>I would therefore like to urge all parties 
>withholding their support to re-think their 
>positions and move away from these 
>all-or-nothing approaches. Having caught a small 
>fish is better than not catching a fish at all.
>
>Best,
>
>--
>Volker A. Greimann
>General Counsel and Policy Manager
>KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
>
>T: +49 6894 9396901
>M: +49 6894 9396851
>F: +49 6894 9396851
>W: <http://www.key-systems.net/>www.key-systems.net
>
>Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the 
>local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
>CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner
>
>Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a 
>company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
>
>
>On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:36 PM Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja> wrote:
>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.
>
>Best,
>Thomas
>
>>Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert 
>><<mailto:epdp at gdpr.ninja>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.
>>
>>Best,
>>Thomas
>>
>>
>>>Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak 
>>><<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>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,
>>>
>>>Rafik
>>>
>>><Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 
>>>.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>>><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>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>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>>>and the website Terms of Service 
>>>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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
><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>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>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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
><mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>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>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200730/9e1a3886/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list