I have just seen an updated Chairs Consensus Designation Table as at 30 July. Would that be an accurate summation, in your opinion?

Thanks,
Justine
------


On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote:

Of the 9 groups on the EPDP, 7 have now either issued statements or

given their level of consensus on the report. Not yet seen are the

NCSG or the ISPCP. But the initial consensus level issue by the

acting Chair who happens to be an NCSG member may indicate their

level of support. Note that the Chair's assessment came out BEFORE

any of the other groups spoke up - it was his best estimate.

They make VERY interesting reading, and I strongly suggest that, at

least for current ALAC members, you read them all.

I am still expecting a GAC and SSAC statement, but it make take a bit

of time. No idea whether NCSG or ISPCP will submit one.

As expected, those with significant business interests (and paid

participation!) have made the strongest and most detailed statements.

I note that the level of consensus on some recommendation will be

interesting. There are 7 groups on the EPDP and it looks like 4 or 5

may not support certain recommendations. It is not clear how the

rating of the groups will impact consensus. My understanding is that

all groups should be given equal weight, so 4 or 5 out of 9 would be

DIVERGENCE (see the definitions of Consensus at the end of the

Chair's document).

On the other hand, the NCSG has repeatedly argued that for the groups

within the GNSO, they must be weighted based on their votes in the

GNSO Council (not quite but basically NCSG = Ry = Rr = (IPC+BC+ISPC))

and they have never said how the ACs would be factored into that.

In the past, the GNSO Council has tended to approve recommendations

with Full Consensus or Consensus. I don't think they have accepted

recommendation with "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" and

certainly not "Divergence". Perhaps Cheryl can confirm.

As other things come in, I will forward them.

What we must decide is whether any of this makes us want to either

revise our statement or add an addendum. My initial inclination is to

go the addendum route.

Alan_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________

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.