Ultimately, the "no-SSAD" "option" describes the status quo. In other words, if we as a group fail to reach consensus this is what we'll have, regardless of what we want. Maybe this can serve as encouragement to move away from extreme positions that have a rabbits chance in a snake pit to survive a consensus call...

Volker

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.

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.