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_bL gFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...> .

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

Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> wrote:

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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google...>

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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> .

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 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>

------------------------------ 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.

Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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.

Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward. I’m for strengthening the language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate. How can we improve the language? Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Paul, I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even refer to it), all we left with is: "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and NCSG or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus". While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not implemented. Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a consensus call. Warm regards, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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.

All, Many thanks for the interesting debate below. The BC would be happy with parity of membership between the CSG and NCSG of course – preferably 6 full members and 3 alternates each. We’d see that as 2+1 per constituency in the CSG, and however the NCSG wants to cut its own cloth! That would not in any way affect the consensus, as regardless the number of physical team members, it would still be one vote per constituency. For clarity, my comments last week were absolutely not about affecting the consensus, but about ensuring that in the CSG we all had equal voices (for the different perspectives/expertise) and that every single brave soul who signs up for this isn’t fired by their employers, or drops of exhaustion, or both, if they’re spending 30hrs per week to find the best workable solution for the entire community. Thanks and have a great evening! Marie From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:06 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Paul, for your constructive suggestion. We are working on this "call for consensus language" bit now on the level of NCSG, and we hope to come back to the list with the proposed language shortly (sorry, different time zones). Hope we will be able to reconcile the differences. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:53, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward. I’m for strengthening the language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate. How can we improve the language? Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Paul, I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even refer to it), all we left with is: "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and NCSG or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus". While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not implemented. Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a consensus call. Warm regards, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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.

Thanks, Marie and Philippe. I’ve added this as a proposed compromise to the EPDP Team Composition google doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJ...). Of course, input from others on whether this would be an acceptable compromise or other proposed compromises are encouraged. Best regards, Marika From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:08 To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: "epdp-dt@icann.org" <epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Marie, All, Thanks for this. The ISPCP would be happy with an option of 6+3 alternates if that helps us out of the weeds and move forward. The caveat you associate this with is important, it was our understanding that members were there to voice their respective constituency’s positions and that numbers wouldn’t affect the decision making process (and speaking personally that’s why numbers shouldn’t matter) The rationale being also for us to reduce the overall size of the team and make it more manageable, it should not be read as “3 spare seats to go for the ACs”. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:36 PM To: Tatiana Tropina; McGrady, Paul D. Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers All, Many thanks for the interesting debate below. The BC would be happy with parity of membership between the CSG and NCSG of course – preferably 6 full members and 3 alternates each. We’d see that as 2+1 per constituency in the CSG, and however the NCSG wants to cut its own cloth! That would not in any way affect the consensus, as regardless the number of physical team members, it would still be one vote per constituency. For clarity, my comments last week were absolutely not about affecting the consensus, but about ensuring that in the CSG we all had equal voices (for the different perspectives/expertise) and that every single brave soul who signs up for this isn’t fired by their employers, or drops of exhaustion, or both, if they’re spending 30hrs per week to find the best workable solution for the entire community. Thanks and have a great evening! Marie From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:06 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Paul, for your constructive suggestion. We are working on this "call for consensus language" bit now on the level of NCSG, and we hope to come back to the list with the proposed language shortly (sorry, different time zones). Hope we will be able to reconcile the differences. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:53, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward. I’m for strengthening the language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate. How can we improve the language? Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Paul, I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even refer to it), all we left with is: "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and NCSG or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus". While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not implemented. Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a consensus call. Warm regards, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJ... [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protecti...> ________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Thanks Marie. So under the BC formulation, each of the points of view would have 3 active members, except for the IPC, BC and ISPs, each of which would have 2? I much prefer that path that Tatiana and I was on which is beefing up the language about how the Chair senses consensus, rather than this path of understaffing the ePDP for the IPC, BC and ISPs. This discussion alone evidences that the IPC and the BC don’t always see eye to all on every subject…I’m afraid that the attempt to mimic the bizarre headcount of the GNSO Council we are missing the point on how much work there is to be done to get this ePDP across the finish line on time. Best, Paul From: Marie Pattullo [mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 5:30 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; philippe.fouquart@orange.com; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks Marika. The BC would still advocate for 2 (and 1 alternate) rather than 1 member, so 6 + 3 NCSG & 6 + 3 CSG, to ensure both practicality and that we have the best possible expertise actively inputting to this vital work. We don’t think that would make the team too unwieldy, but we do think it would help all of us to manage this heavy lift in the most realistic and beneficial way. Best Marie From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 11:26 AM To: philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Marie and Philippe. I’ve added this as a proposed compromise to the EPDP Team Composition google doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C85543b0ddbee458d914d08d5e26248bd%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636663834125389206&sdata=%2B0Soq3OS5tUSVP2fGgszd9qkRt54fRH9lMskNLImNEw%3D&reserved=0>). Of course, input from others on whether this would be an acceptable compromise or other proposed compromises are encouraged. Best regards, Marika From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:08 To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: "epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>" <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Marie, All, Thanks for this. The ISPCP would be happy with an option of 6+3 alternates if that helps us out of the weeds and move forward. The caveat you associate this with is important, it was our understanding that members were there to voice their respective constituency’s positions and that numbers wouldn’t affect the decision making process (and speaking personally that’s why numbers shouldn’t matter) The rationale being also for us to reduce the overall size of the team and make it more manageable, it should not be read as “3 spare seats to go for the ACs”. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:36 PM To: Tatiana Tropina; McGrady, Paul D. Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers All, Many thanks for the interesting debate below. The BC would be happy with parity of membership between the CSG and NCSG of course – preferably 6 full members and 3 alternates each. We’d see that as 2+1 per constituency in the CSG, and however the NCSG wants to cut its own cloth! That would not in any way affect the consensus, as regardless the number of physical team members, it would still be one vote per constituency. For clarity, my comments last week were absolutely not about affecting the consensus, but about ensuring that in the CSG we all had equal voices (for the different perspectives/expertise) and that every single brave soul who signs up for this isn’t fired by their employers, or drops of exhaustion, or both, if they’re spending 30hrs per week to find the best workable solution for the entire community. Thanks and have a great evening! Marie From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:06 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Paul, for your constructive suggestion. We are working on this "call for consensus language" bit now on the level of NCSG, and we hope to come back to the list with the proposed language shortly (sorry, different time zones). Hope we will be able to reconcile the differences. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:53, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward. I’m for strengthening the language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate. How can we improve the language? Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Paul, I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even refer to it), all we left with is: "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and NCSG or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus". While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not implemented. Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a consensus call. Warm regards, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJ... [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> ________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Thanks Marie. I agree with you, which is why I am worried about every point of view have 3 workers + an alternate and the BC, IPC, and ISPs each having 2 workers plus an alternate. Best, Paul From: Marie Pattullo [mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 6:57 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; philippe.fouquart@orange.com; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Just trying to be practical about workload Paul – not at all an attempt to affect consensus in any way as we had understood that this would not be affected by headcount! Or as Philippe puts it below, with far more clarity than me, “it was our understanding that members were there to voice their respective constituency’s positions and that numbers wouldn’t affect the decision making process (and speaking personally that’s why numbers shouldn’t matter)”. Best Marie From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 1:48 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks Marie. So under the BC formulation, each of the points of view would have 3 active members, except for the IPC, BC and ISPs, each of which would have 2? I much prefer that path that Tatiana and I was on which is beefing up the language about how the Chair senses consensus, rather than this path of understaffing the ePDP for the IPC, BC and ISPs. This discussion alone evidences that the IPC and the BC don’t always see eye to all on every subject…I’m afraid that the attempt to mimic the bizarre headcount of the GNSO Council we are missing the point on how much work there is to be done to get this ePDP across the finish line on time. Best, Paul From: Marie Pattullo [mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 5:30 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>>; philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks Marika. The BC would still advocate for 2 (and 1 alternate) rather than 1 member, so 6 + 3 NCSG & 6 + 3 CSG, to ensure both practicality and that we have the best possible expertise actively inputting to this vital work. We don’t think that would make the team too unwieldy, but we do think it would help all of us to manage this heavy lift in the most realistic and beneficial way. Best Marie From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 11:26 AM To: philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>; Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Marie and Philippe. I’ve added this as a proposed compromise to the EPDP Team Composition google doc (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI/edit<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7C85543b0ddbee458d914d08d5e26248bd%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636663834125389206&sdata=%2B0Soq3OS5tUSVP2fGgszd9qkRt54fRH9lMskNLImNEw%3D&reserved=0>). Of course, input from others on whether this would be an acceptable compromise or other proposed compromises are encouraged. Best regards, Marika From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>" <philippe.fouquart@orange.com<mailto:philippe.fouquart@orange.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:08 To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>>, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: "epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>" <epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Marie, All, Thanks for this. The ISPCP would be happy with an option of 6+3 alternates if that helps us out of the weeds and move forward. The caveat you associate this with is important, it was our understanding that members were there to voice their respective constituency’s positions and that numbers wouldn’t affect the decision making process (and speaking personally that’s why numbers shouldn’t matter) The rationale being also for us to reduce the overall size of the team and make it more manageable, it should not be read as “3 spare seats to go for the ACs”. Regards, Philippe From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2018 9:36 PM To: Tatiana Tropina; McGrady, Paul D. Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers All, Many thanks for the interesting debate below. The BC would be happy with parity of membership between the CSG and NCSG of course – preferably 6 full members and 3 alternates each. We’d see that as 2+1 per constituency in the CSG, and however the NCSG wants to cut its own cloth! That would not in any way affect the consensus, as regardless the number of physical team members, it would still be one vote per constituency. For clarity, my comments last week were absolutely not about affecting the consensus, but about ensuring that in the CSG we all had equal voices (for the different perspectives/expertise) and that every single brave soul who signs up for this isn’t fired by their employers, or drops of exhaustion, or both, if they’re spending 30hrs per week to find the best workable solution for the entire community. Thanks and have a great evening! Marie From: Epdp-dt <epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 11:06 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Thanks, Paul, for your constructive suggestion. We are working on this "call for consensus language" bit now on the level of NCSG, and we hope to come back to the list with the proposed language shortly (sorry, different time zones). Hope we will be able to reconcile the differences. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:53, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Tatiana for suggesting a way forward. I’m for strengthening the language you quote below to bring you comfort rather than diminishing the ISP, BC and ISP’s ability to staff the ePDP and participate. How can we improve the language? Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:41 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Paul, I am more than a little troubled that the discussion you refer to happened in the context of "votes" balance when the imbalance in representation was supposed to be "balanced" by giving proportional weight to the "votes" each SGs could have. Now, when the voting is gone (as we encouraged not even refer to it), all we left with is: "For the purpose of assessing consensus, and in order to reflect and respect the current balance and bicameral structure of the GNSO Council, the Chair shall apply necessary and appropriate weight to the positions of the respective groups, noting that increased membership from BC, IPC and ISPCP relative to the CPH and NCSG upsets that balance. The CPH, and NCSG or any SG or C that does not fulfil its entire membership allowance must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus". While I understand that the purpose of this phrase is to fix the imbalance, I do not see how it strictly binds the chair for the purpose of assessing consensus. I am not concerned that we would be outvoted in some way, I am concerned that we will be outnumbered, and our position will suffer if the strict rules for balance in assessing consensus are not implemented. Perhaps the consensus assessment rules for the chair should be rephrased that the chair "must" apply weight and provide a clearer description as to what this all means. Right now it is too vague as to what the chair should do and how with this imbalance if there is a need for a consensus call. Warm regards, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 22:29, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Hi Tatiana, We had long conversations about this around the Council table, so I’m a little troubled that it is being raised again on the list, days later. As we discussed, the point was to get every viewpoint to the table and to staff it appropriately with the needed # of volunteers (even if it doesn’t fit neatly within the arbitrary SG structure that was imposed years ago). That is why every viewpoint has 3 members – so we can get work done. Your concerns about the volume of representation seems to relate to a sense that you would be “outvoted” in some way, but as we discussed for a long time at Council table, consensus calls would be taken by along the lines of 1 voice each, not according to the # of people each C has. It is hard to recap what was, I believe, probably over an hour of discussion on this again-raised point. In any event, I don’t think disenfranchising the IPC, BC and ISPs is any sort of solution. Best, Paul From: Tatiana Tropina [mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:01 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Cc: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>; epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Epdp-dt] Membership Composition - All Stakeholder Groups Must Have Parity in Numbers Sorry for typos all - iPhones are not really the best way to send long emails, I meant in my previous email that under the current proposal we will have 18 members, 9 of them from CSG (half!), and this is too much of imbalance in any book. Not balanced, really. Cheers, Tanya On 2 July 2018 at 21:59, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina@gmail.com<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul, Is there any reason why SGs are equal to constituencies in terms of representation? Could anyone explain me the balance here? 3+3+3 for each constituency in CSG will bring us to 9 members from SCG and 3 members from each other constituency. So we have 9 members from SCG, 3 from NCSG, 3 from Rr and 3 from Ry. 9 members from SCG against 9 members vs 9 members in total from any other SG. If this is a balanced or fair representation, I don't know what's not. I can't believe this even could be discussed seriously. 18 members, 9 of them from SG? This math fails me completely and there is no different lens or any lens I can consider this through as any kind of fairness. Not even remotely. If you insist on 3+3+3 it means we have to have 9 members from other stakeholder groups, that's it. Because the imbalance is just too astounding, I am sorry to say. Warm regards, Tatiana On 2 July 2018 at 21:49, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: 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<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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJ... [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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 [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....> ________________________________ 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. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. In a normal PDP, individuals from other SOs and ACs may join freely and contribute as they wish. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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<mailto: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<mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com>>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Cc: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1I3LJkIN1Xdp8lW92fLq5d_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJPzI%2Fedit&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=dEO3olXpuAZ4ZbswPuFIsyVUFUudHElU8wyyMWCQIfI%3D&reserved=0> We really need to come to agreement on this sooner rather than later. Donna From: Epdp-dt [mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:epdp-dt-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 2:35 PM To: epdp-dt@icann.org<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense....>. 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<mailto:Epdp-dt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fepdp-dt&data=02%7C01%7Cpmcgrady%40winston.com%7C898c4e881da74a65a2de08d5e053e65e%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636661573307770449&sdata=hVoO3LUpD2hcHJbUALsypFecavm3ed%2B%2B86iQG%2B0kso4%3D&reserved=0> ________________________________ 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.

Hi Donna, Thanks for your comments. I believe that membership for this EPDP should follow the distribution of the Council, with equal parts representation of the CPH and the NCPH. Any other membership composition will not be "balanced representation." As this is a GNSO-initiated EPDP, I think that the majority of the membership should be from the GNSO, which is why I support limiting participation from the other SO/ACs (and this would achieve substantial cost savings, as fewer travellers would need to be brought to face-to-face meetings). However I also recognise the political reality that the GAC wants to be involved in this process, which is why I was exceptionally okay with them having 3 members participate. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On 2 July 2018 9:29 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> 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_bLgFv7gWQvOb9mgVSJ...

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](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...).

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