Hi Milton, In that case I won’t “go so far” to keep our agreement intact 😊 The word “never” seems troubling to me, so if you could help me understand the last part of your last sentence a bit better please: Are you saying that even if the DPB writes to the Strawberries and says “yes, it’s possible to isolate liability for decision-making centrally with ICANN Org”, it would still be impossible for us to come to consensus on the centralized decision-making model? (ignoring how (un)likely we think that response is) Brian J. King Director of Internet Policy and Industry Affairs T +1 443 761 3726 markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com> MarkMonitor Protecting companies and consumers in a digital world From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:26 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Draft Initial Report Ha, you spoiled the agreement, Brian. ;-)
If I can go so far, I suggest that the initial report indicate that we are working primarily toward the “centralized” model pending crucial input from the DPB.
This is not our understanding at all. One reason I want to eliminate the “no SSAD” option is that I think it confuses the issue of centralizing requests, which can be done and can gain consensus, versus centralizing the decision maker, which I think is deeply problematic and will never gain consensus.