A quick response from me: I think in general terms this is a good approach - if all the EPDP members enter into it in the right spirit.

In terms of deference to the small groups - I think a key to success is that small groups must be clever enough to recognize and flag anything controversial enough to require consideration by the plenary. Just as we don't want the plenary to relitigate what the small groups do, we also don't want the small groups to pre-empt decisions that should be made by the plenary. In case of doubt, kick it upstairs to the plenary. Otherwise we WILL end up re-litigating a lot of things.

I agree with your categorization of the purposes, but haven't had time to review how you categorized all the recommendations. I'll do that as soon as I can. If you don't hear from me by end Sunday (Monday morning for some of you) I have no objection.

--MM

Hi Everyone:

The Support team has reflected on the progress in the last meeting and the amount of work before us. I have attached a plan for reviewing the public comment that would be put in place as early as Tuesday. This will require some reflection and response on your part over the weekend - mainly to review the attached and signal agreement or suggestion for amendment. This is a significant departure from our usual operating mode but, I believe is necessary.

This recommendation provides a process but not a methodology or standard of review for the comments. Clearly, some standard is required to make our review more objective and efficient. I found Mark’s emailed suggestion helpful on this. We will continue analyze different possibilities over the weekend and would appreciate any recommendation from the team.

Let me know your thoughts. There will be additional followups in the very near future.

Thanks and best regards,

Kurt

_______________________________________________
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team