ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. Alan
Hello Alan, I like the use of "strong concern" instead of a reject. Thanks for all the effort on getting this through Cheers! Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 04:38 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:
As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document.
A redline and clean version is attached.
Alan_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Hi all, Thank you Alan for submitting our statement. The deadline for the submission of statements has been extended and we can still - if we wish - submit an additional statement on Tuesday. Best Hadia ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 16 February 2019 05:44 To: Alan Greenberg Cc: CPWG; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [CPWG] ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 Final Report Hello Alan, I like the use of "strong concern" instead of a reject. Thanks for all the effort on getting this through Cheers! Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 04:38 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. Alan_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do. Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers. So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help. When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it. Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document.
A redline and clean version is attached.
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+(ALA...)
+1 to Carlton Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 16 févr. 2019 à 21:20, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> a écrit :
The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do.
Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers.
So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help.
When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it.
Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document.
A redline and clean version is attached.
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+(ALA...)
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+(ALA...)
If ALAC member support to Carlton's comments could make any difference, I do support this. While final draft has been replaced with "strong concerns" I think the last paragraph still reads that we object a number of sections yet we are supporting the entire package and that again doesn't read well. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 21:21 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com wrote:
The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do.
Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers.
So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help.
When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it.
Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html)
and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document.
A redline and clean version is attached.
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+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
All, We can still submit another statement, we have till Tuesday. We could provide our reply to the consensus calls and separately provide a clarifying position statement. We only go forward with what we as a group agree on Best hadia From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 12:14 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: ALAC; CPWG; Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 Final Report If ALAC member support to Carlton's comments could make any difference, I do support this. While final draft has been replaced with "strong concerns" I think the last paragraph still reads that we object a number of sections yet we are supporting the entire package and that again doesn't read well. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 21:21 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do. Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers. So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help. When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it. Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. Alan_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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+(ALA...)
+1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Seun Ojedeji To: Carlton Samuels Cc: ALAC ; CPWG ; Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 6:14 AM Subject: Re: [CPWG] [ALAC] ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 FinalReport If ALAC member support to Carlton's comments could make any difference, I do support this. While final draft has been replaced with "strong concerns" I think the last paragraph still reads that we object a number of sections yet we are supporting the entire package and that again doesn't read well. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 21:21 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com wrote: The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do. Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers. So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help. When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it. Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
As government member from developing country I do had to exercitas-te diplomacy several times - the “ I have difficulty” approach sounds familiar and for me worded well in several occasions Thanks to bing it back Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad Sorry for any typos and misspellings On 16 Feb 2019, at 18:21, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: The ALAC is being asked to go along with the EPDP proposal despite our representative team's concerns with several aspects of the output. It appears the decision is to 'go along to get along' and hope for better in Phase II. So we want to be seen as 'cooperative' without filing a minority report and appear obdurate, which as a chartered member, we have every right to do. Maybe its because I generally hate these 'one-the-one-hand-and on-the-other-hand' tomes. They create confused minds and you come across looking like nitpickers. So, might I suggest that for this exercise in diplomacy, you will have to use the labels 'concern[s]' and 'difficulty' with a bit more precision. Maybe a suggestion from the language used by my university's Finance and General Purpose [management] Committee would help. When a member object to any portion of a resolution or decision and it appears non-negotiable, the member maintains integrity by saying they have a 'difficulty' with the specific topic and cannot support it. Expressing 'a concern' means that the current view could be adjusted and there is room for negotiations. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:38 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. Alan_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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+(ALA...)
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Kan Kaili -
Sebastien Bachollet -
Seun Ojedeji -
Vanda Scartezini