Thank you very much Rafik. It is indeed a lot of food to digest! ON THE SYSTEMIC ISSUES, I can only comment based on my own experience (both in ICANN and previously as Commissioner) and concur to some of Jeff's comments 1. IT IS BETTER TO STICK TO A TIME SCHEDULE AND REPECT THE DEADLINES. ATRT2 did much better than the CCT Review in that respect. Delaying is only a tactic, and it does not help over the long term. 2. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO CONTINUE IF THERE IS NO PROGRESS BEING MADE. ccNSO-GNSO Working Group on Geographic Names did not make any progress and we decided to stop and wind down that process, that eventually was picked up in WT-5 of SubPro. The risk is large enough: if you don´t make any progress like in the new Directory Services, somebody else will do it for you from the outside (GDPR) and you will have to adapt to a new environment. So we have to stop gazing so long at our own navels waiting for the other side to give up or get bored and leave the room. 3. It is MUCH better to have a REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS (like ePDP and reviews) than a representative group of Co-Chairs, because it may preempt some of the real discussion on new options and fresh facts. 4. On (the much touted Multi Stake holder-) CONSENSUS: While at the working group level, consensus or the lack of it might represent inflexible positions, and we can do little about it, the Board has a much higher level of responsibility and since ATRT1 is bound to a clear and explicit rationale for their decisions in contentious issues like in the case of the reconsideration. Now a few questions to my fellow Councillors: what is the appropriate consensus standard for the Council, which is exactly between the Working Group's recommendations and the Board??? Do we work based on consensus metrics like in the recent discussion on the ePDP, so criticized by Jeff (and I must say correctly so, since it left a bad feeling in our mouths)? Or do we close the doors to the public, until we can come up with a clear rationale for the whole Council's decision in such important cases (like the Board does, even if they don't always have the best rationale)? We really have to position ourselves correctly between PDP and the Board, and we might have to be flexible as well depending on the scope and impact of the issue at stake. Which brings me to...... THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL'S AGENDA IN THE SHORT TERM. The most important lesson for me in the short term, is that as the managers of the process, we have to take a few pieces of wisdom here and discuss them as soon as possible. And the reason I´m bringing them to the table, is because I want to move the IGO-INGO issue forward in the next council session, in a manner consistent with PDP 3.0 and Jeff´s timely comments. While it is nice to have many options, I doubt we have so many option in the case of the IGO-INGOs RPM for the next meeting. The consensus issue Jeff so nicely covers is at the Working Group (discussion-)level, not at the Councils (approval-)level. Please correct me if I´m wrong (cc:Jeff). In my view we have to narrow down the options we have on the IGOs issue * either we accept the full report, even with recommendations we don't like, and send it up TOGETHER ith the minority reports to the Board and let them chew the whole consensus issue at the working group level. or **we send it back to the drawing Board to the OLD or a NEW PDP working group (there we have an extra degree of freedom) Anything else would put our narrow remit as <<Manager of the PDP process>> in the gray areas Jeff so well discusses and we don't have time to fix before our next meeting in a few days time. Sorry to use up the opportunity Jeff gave us to focus on such a narrow and short term agenda issue. But it is one very close to my hearth over the last 6 years. My personal lesson form my first reading of Jeff's "Kantian critique", is that we have to be more flexible but also more careful with our decisions in the Council. We may have a healthy discussion and defend our positions to the end in some public cases (like the chair elections) but we have to close the doors and think hard and come up with a good rationale for other tough decisions, particularly ones that impact many people outside of the ICANN world. I have to agree with Jeff that insisting in the consensus level reached for the ePDP does not make us look good. And my sincere apologies to the Councilors who voted against some recommendations for that silly situation we have been going trough. They deserve better from their colleagues. An let's try to do a better job next time, since we recently come from the land of continuous improvement. Cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2019-04-03 01:13, Rafik Dammak escribió:
Hi all,
Jeff kindly shared his blog post about PDP 3.0. Food for thought.
Best,
Rafik
---------- Forwarded message --------- De : JEFF NEUMAN Date: mar. 2 avr. 2019 à 22:47 Subject: Circle ID piece on PDP 3.0 To:
Keith, Rafik and Pam,
I just wanted to draft your attention to a piece I did for Circle ID on PDP 3.0. Please feel free to post this to the Council and let me know if there is anything I can do to help with the efforts.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190401_dwill_pdp_3_save_the_multi_stakeholde...
I have enclosed a PDF copy as well.
Best regards,
JEFF NEUMAN
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 600, McLean
VA 22102, USA
M: +1.202.549.5079
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com [1]
Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Links: ------ [1] http://www.comlaude.com/
