Agreed as well! ----------------- Arsène Tungali, about.me/ArseneTungali +243 993810967 GPG: 523644A0 Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
On Jul 17, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:
Agreed!
Best, Keith
From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:38 AM To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted
+1, Heather. We also need to consider the optics: this is (one of) the most important issue(s) to have come across the Council’s desk; we can’t be seen to be excluding only one AC, especially as that was never our intention. Let’s get the right people together within the best framework that time allows and do all that we can to assist them to make solid progress. Thanks, Marie
From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:32 PM To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted
Dear Stephanie, Ayden, all,
I take Stephanie's point about past issues in the RDS PDP membership very seriously. With those in mind, I think we've laid good ground work to acknowledge issues of diluting through the strict adherence to the GNSO WG Guidelines (with their clear requirements around consensus building methods and very narrow treatment of voting), and through the application of the Statement of Commitment. We worked exceptionally hard to achieve parity within the GNSO, and the SSAC, ALAC and ccNSO are also at parity. While Ayden I appreciate your option for RSSAC lower numbers, here is another place I don't want to see us crash so close to the finish line.
On the basis of all comments received, I believe we are best placed to give RSSAC the option of parity, bearing in mind that - as with the other SO/ACs, they don't have to fill all the allocated positions. They are not going to be voting to determine consensus, so truly I'm not worried about dilution. The principle of the matter, yes - but on the force of everyone's comments we need to move forward with this edit and simply put our trust in the Chair and the GNSO Operating Procedures to ensure that the process remains fundamentally a PDP. In any PDP that happens through the applicable rules and procedures, not through the membership composition.
Best wishes,
Heather
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: This is a very good point, Stephanie. In turning this into a 'CCWG-light' and inviting in as 'members' representatives of all of the Advisory Committees we are weakening the GNSO's balance and our role in the broader ICANN ecosystem. I do not object to the participation of the RSSAC, but I do think we should limit their membership to one seat. I'd suggest the same for the other ACs too, however I know we have already discussed composition and reached an agreement there, so there is no point in re-opening that topic.
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 4:17 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I would just like to remark that we were plagued in the RDS PDP with a plethora of security folks...researchers, contractors, corporate types, etc. who advanced only one point of view....keep open access to WHOIS, it is a) easy for us b) free c) uncomplicated, we have already built our ML and Analytic systems around it d) we need (name a product ) from the existing value added service providers (e.g.Domain Tools), e) criminals will take over the world if you don't listen to us. These are legitimate concerns, but if we are importing a whole range of actors from several ACs (GAC, ALAC, RSSAC, SSAC c.f. recent document SSAC 101) advancing the identical security specialist's viewpoint, which we ought to recognize by now ignores DP law, I think we have destroyed the GNSO balance and are likely to revisit the morass we fell into on the RDS group. Now, I don't really care if the temp spec falls away because we either can't reach consensus, or wind up with a product that will not stand up in Court. However, the GNSO and ICANN ought to care deeply. So if we accept RSSAC can we limit the influence they will have on the consensus calculus, if I am correct in my fears? it is probably too late to try to exercise any restraint on the other parties (so far over five years, my batting average on risk assessment is really pretty outstanding. Nobody is listening yet....)
Cheers Stephanie
On 2018-07-16 07:47, Ayden Férdeline wrote: Hi Heather,
I don't formally object to their participation; I just don't understand why they would want to participate. If they are invited to participate, I hope we can make it clear that they are neither required nor expected to send anyone. And perhaps it would be better to allocate them only one seat (with one alternate)?
Best wishes, Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 1:06 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, all, for your rapid responses.
Rafik - I note you specifically stated that your point wasn't to be understood as an objection. Michele, Ayden, may I check with you both please that this is also the case for yourselves? I personally believe that Rafik has made an excellent point but I also note that when PDP participation is open, we welcome members and observers from throughout the community. We have the WG Guidelines as a means of differentiating the PDP from a CCWG here and going forward.
All that said, I hesitate to inform the RSSAC unless we're all in agreement here that there isn't grounds to object.
Best wishes,
Heather
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote: +1 Michele
—Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 16 July 2018 10:47 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
I tend to agree with Rafik
I also don’t understand why RSSAC would be interested in this and even if they are they’ll get opportunities to provide input via public comment periods etc
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Date: Monday 16 July 2018 at 01:04 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Cc: "epdp-dt@icann.org" <epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Team composition - RSSAC omitted
hi Heather,
while I don't want to object and raise a problem for us as a group but I would like to make a point. I think we are making a GNSO (E)PDP de facto a CCWG regardless if RSSAC or ccNSO appointing representatives and I don't think this is something we intended or expect for GNSO PDP. I would like to highlight that we are setting a precedent here that will be hard to argue against in future. I can understand for the idea to be inclusive and open the door to other SO/AC since we chose to limit the size and participation but in fact, only GAC, SSAC and possibly ALAC expressed interest to join the EPDP and shared some of their positions. I heard arguments about ccNSO as they may bring ccTLD operators in EU may bring their own experience(while noticing ccNSO didn't appoint any representative to RDS2 RT). I am not sure what RSSAC and so Root Server Operators can bring here as I don't think they are dealing with whois in any way.
I just wanted to share my thoughts here.
Best,
Rafik
Le dim. 15 juil. 2018 à 19:31, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> a écrit : Dear DT colleagues,
It has come to my attention that we failed to include the RSSAC in the SO/AC allocations on the DT. I have checked with the small group, who have confirmed that the RSSAC wasn't discussed there. We mentioned SSAC in the DT call last week. This makes me think that the RSSAC's absence on the team composition document is an oversight in our intense efforts. Equal treatment gives them the same as ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC. I'm putting this out to the DT mailing list to check if there are any objections. If so, please raise these swiftly, as the RSSAC is already behind in terms of the invite for participants and we'll need to notify them ASAP. I'd like to give it 24 hours to be as efficient as possible here.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Heather
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt
_______________________________________________ Epdp-dt mailing list Epdp-dt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt