<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"></head>
<body>
Keith, are you planning to do a formal Consensus Call on the
recommendations?<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2021-09-01 02:20 AM, Drazek, Keith via Gnso-epdp-team wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi all,<br><br>
In my capacity as Chair of the EPDP 2A effort, I would like to share my
observations and assessment of our work and my consensus designations on
the Final Report and our recommendations to the GNSO Council.
<ol>
<li>The EPDP 2A work was chartered and launched following very intense
community work on EPDP Phase 1 and Phase 2, both of which presented
significant challenges and difficult negotiations. As the new Chair, I
had concerns at the outset of the 2A effort that the team’s recent
experience would make reaching consensus in this phase unlikely, at best.
I am pleased to note that the EPDP 2A Team was able to engage and work
constructively, from very different starting points, to reach general
consensus on the recommendations and guidance contained in the Final
Report.
</ol>
<ol>
<li><a name="_Hlk81343450"></a>While the Final Report and its
recommendations have the general support of the EPDP 2A Team, it’s
important to note that certain groups feel that the work did not go as
far as needed, or did not include sufficient detail, while other groups
feel that certain recommendations were not necessary. In this context, I
urge all readers of the EPDP 2A Final Report to also read the minority
statements submitted by each group, which will be appended and become
part of the Final Report and historical record of our work. By way of
example, one of the key differences of opinion among EPDP 2A groups was
the question of whether differentiation between legal and natural person
registration data should be mandatory or optional, and these differences
of opinion are largely unchanged by the recommendations in the Final
Report. Rather, the Final Report text constitutes a compromise that is
the best that could be achieved by the group at this time under our
currently allocated time and scope, and it should not be read as
delivering results that were fully satisfactory to everyone. This
underscores the importance of the minority statements in understanding
the full context of the Final Report recommendations.
</ol>
<ol>
<li>Over the last eight months, the EPDP 2A team worked in challenging
circumstances, including fully remote engagement and without the benefit
of face-to-face interaction or dialogue. This proved to be a real
challenge, and one that should be acknowledged in planning for future
GNSO policy processes. In the experience of EPDP Phase 1 and Phase 2,
there is no doubt that face-to-face engagement was crucial in
constructively advancing the work of the group. During Phase 2A, in lieu
of in-person meetings, the Leadership Team and Staff worked with Melissa
Allgood of ICANN Org to set up facilitated conversations, outside the
plenary setting, to try to replicate the less formal engagement of a
face-to-face meeting. I feel that effort was helpful in generating
dialogue and in bringing divergent perspectives and positions to a point
where consensus was possible, even if on a limited set of
recommendations.
</ol>
<ol>
<li>In my assessment, I believe that the EPDP Phase 2A Final Report has
consensus of the EPDP Team, and each of its recommendations have secured
consensus. Over the last two weeks, we worked through our
“can’t-live-with” items and I want to personally thank all who
contributed concrete suggestions and text edits that helped us resolve
remaining differences and come together. While I believe we could
designate the recommendations as having “Full Consensus,” I note that
many groups have indicated that they will submit minority statements,
which are typically used when there are dissenting views. As such, I feel
that a “Consensus” designation is more appropriate, which will
acknowledge and make room for explanatory text to be submitted outside
the four corners of the Final Report body to provide important context
for our deliberations and recommendations.
</ol><br>
To appropriately capture the dynamics of the group discussions, at a high
level, I propose to include the following introductory text in the Final
Report:<br><br>
While this Final Report and its recommendations have the general support
of the EPDP 2A Team, it is important to note that some groups felt
that the work did not go as far as needed, or did not include sufficient
detail, while other groups felt that certain recommendations were not
appropriate or necessary. In this context, all readers of the EPDP 2A
Final Report should also read the minority statements submitted by each
group, which have been appended and are part of the Final Report and
historical record of our work. <br><br>
Beyond the consensus reached on the Final Report recommendations, there
are several areas where the EPDP 2A groups did not fully agree, including
whether differentiation between legal and natural person registration
data should be mandatory or optional, and whether publication of legal
person registration data was appropriately balanced against the risk of
inadvertent disclosure of personal data associated with legal person
registrations. These differences of opinion and perspective are largely
unchanged by the recommendations in the Final Report. <br><br>
This Final Report constitutes a compromise that is the best that could be
achieved by the group at this time under our currently allocated time and
scope, and it should not be read as delivering results that were fully
satisfactory to everyone. This underscores the importance of the minority
statements in understanding the full context of the Final Report
recommendations.<br><br>
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all EPDP Team members,
alternates, support groups, and very importantly our ICANN staff
colleagues who contributed tirelessly to this EPDP effort over the course
of several years. Our Phase 2A work is the culmination of the EPDP as
originally chartered and made necessary by the Temporary Specification.
There may yet be future work needed on these important issues, but I’m
pleased to report that we have concluded this phase and can be proud of
our work to deliver the current recommendations, even if the results were
not fully satisfactory to all. That is the nature of compromise and
consensus-building, and I am confident we achieved the best we could
under challenging circumstances.<br><br>
Sincerest regards,<br><br>
Keith<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></body>
</html>