+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