Thanks Keith. I was with you until the end. Again, I don’t think that disenfranchising the views of the IPC, BC and ISPs is the way to go, especially since –as you note- consensus won’t be by vote. I’m disappointed that after hours of discussion on this in Panama and days with no objection, there is a list minute movement to hamper the IPC, BC, and ISP’s ability to staff and participate in this ePDP. I think we should stick with what was already discussed in Panama.

From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:39 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; tatiana.tropina@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar
Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Hi all,

I’d like to provide my current understanding and expectations, and ask a clarifying question:

We are in uncharted territory with this EPDP. We’ve never had an EPDP before, and this one is forced to operate under a tight deadline triggered by the Temporary Specification language in registry and registrar agreements.
In a normal PDP, there is no restriction on participation or representation, so any number of participants could engage as they choose, regardless of SG/C.
In a normal PDP, individuals from other SOs and ACs may join freely and contribute as they wish.
This is not a normal PDP and we’ve elected to restrict participation and agreed to find a balance that supports the concept of “inclusivity” across the ICANN community.
To keep this EPDP WG focused and cost-effective, we agreed to keep the numbers manageable and settled on a ballpark number of 30. The current construct is 30 plus 5 liaisons and the independent Chair for a total of 36.
The original proposal from Staff (in the draft charter template) had participation at the SG level, not C level. It was in response to Marie and Paul’s intervention in Panama that we considered expanding the CSG groups to enable participation at the C level, as their views may differ.
The discussion of “voting” thresholds and “vote weighting” was set aside, noting that the EPDP WG will work to reach consensus and will not engage in polling or voting.
We agreed that participants in the EPDP WG are representing their SO, AC, SG or C and not their individual views or position. As such, each as a group will be asked whether there is consensus, not each individual participant.
The SGs and Cs must take a position in support of consensus or indicate that more work needs to be done. Because of this, I do not see imbalance in determining the outcome. The CSG constituencies will have one position each, not 3 each, and there very well may be differences among them.
We are not re-creating the GNSO Council structure with this EPDP WG. We have added participation from other SOs and ACs, so it is no longer possible to have it be a copy of the GNSO Council.
With the intensity of work ahead of us, I do not believe that one person from any SG or C can handle the responsibility of representing their respective groups alone. We must ensure we have sufficient engagement to deliver an initial report in approximately 8 weeks. We need several people from each interested group to contribute, while also ensuring we avoid the pitfalls of voting/polling and creating a perceived imbalance of power in decision-making.

Question: Is the balance concern an issue related to decision-making, or participation levels? In other words, is the worry that the CSG groups will have a stronger voice in determining final consensus? Or is it about participation levels over the coming months?

I do not support making the WG any bigger than the current number of 36. Perhaps the answer is to have the BC, IPC and ISPCP receive two (2) participation slots each instead of three (3)? That would re-balance the participation while ensuring no constituency is single-threaded and relying on only one representative.

We need to be flexible here and reach agreement on a very unfortunate and tight timeline that was imposed upon us. Let’s come together and figure out a fair and responsible construct that ensures maximum likelihood of success. We’ll surely learn lessons from any decision, but no decision is not an option.

Regards,

Keith

From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:49 PM
To: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>
Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Thanks Tatiana,

We did not agree to cut down the representation of each of the IPC, BC, and ISPCP to 1. It has always been 3.

Best,

Paul

From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>
Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Dear Donna, dear all,

I agree with Ayden on this - I thought we figured out in Panama that it was a math mistake and IPC+BC+ISPCP should have one member each (3 members from SG in total). Otherwise, the imbalance in SG representation is astounding - CSG will have 9 reps and other SGs only 3 (including Rr and Ry SGs). I understand that this came from initial counting mistake, but this should be fixed as soon as possible. I thought it wasn't even a subject of discussion as it was a simple counting mistake made because of drafting on the fly.

I won't be able to attend the call on the 5th as I will be on the plane at the time of the call, but I hope this bad math will get fixed as soon as possible and won't be a subject of discussion on the call. It's not even a discussion about the balanced representation anymore, the fact that it was a math mistake was accepted by the membership composition team lead in Panama, and why it has got further into the document is beyond me.

Warm regards,

Tatiana

On 2 July 2018 at 21:29, Austin, Donna via Epdp-dt <epdp-dt@icann.org> wrote:

Ayden and Stephanie,

I understand your concerns about representation and that it is inconsistent with current GNSO Council norms, but I wonder if it is possible for you to consider this through a different lens. Because we decided not to have an open call for members in order to keep the size of the team manageable and more responsive we need to come up with balanced representation. I don't believe, for example, that reducing the numbers for the collective CSG and NCSG provides an appropriate balance with the CPH. I also don't understand the rationale to have 3 GAC members, but reduce the number for the other SO/ACs.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit

We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later.

Donna

From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM
To: epdp-dt@icann.org
Subject: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers

Dear all,

I hope that I am mis-reading the table in this section of the charter.

From what I see, it has been proposed that the Commercial Stakeholder Group will have 9 members on the EPDP, whereas all other Stakeholder Groups will have 3 members. This is fundamentally unfair and we require parity.

If this is not an error, I would like to know based on what rationale it was thought to allocate 9 membership slots to the CSG while all other Stakeholder Groups have only 3 members.

At the NCPH level, it is essential that there be parity in membership numbers between the CSG and the NCSG.

Thank you,

Ayden Férdeline

_______________________________________________
Epdp-dt mailing list
Epdp-dt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.