Hello Kurt and EPDP, Below are our comments on the report. 1. It should be clarified that where NCSG indicated "No Strong Opinion", it solely meant a deferral and it reserves the right to discuss issues related to those sections. 2. Please add a clarification to the following paragraph: "After the first meeting, it was realized there would be few areas of consensus that sections were supported as written so it was decided to not spend time attempting to reach consensus on any section during the triage stage." *Clarification:* *Despite having been required by the EPDP charter to provide a* "Full consensus support" triage report, "After the first meeting, it was realized there would be few areas of consensus that sections were supported as written so it was decided to not spend time attempting to reach consensus on any section during the triage stage." * Hence this document should not be treated as a consensus document*. 3. page, 4,"A summary chart indicating which teams supported individual Temporary Specification sections" this has to change to: a summary chart indicating each *team's opinion *about each section of temp spec." The chart really does not relay support as such. it is inclusive of support and disagreements. so opinion might be a better word. 4. Paragraph 1, page 8: "Importantly, there was often agreement on broad principles, but those areas of agreement are hidden in this chart where the combination of sections into one line item or suggested minor edits resulted in “not supporting the language as written.” This paragraph should be removed. "Agreement on broad principles" iwithout mentioning those principles makes it obscure. We need to either name the broad principles (which can't happen now) or we should remove. 5.page 8, Paragraph 4: "The Registry Stakeholder Group, when disagreeing with a section, often voiced general agreement but with certain changes recommended." We would like to know if the RySG stated this in a comment and if not which methodology has been used to determine it "often" voiced "general agreement". The more general point is that, certainly there are agreements on some issues but the table is inconclusive in showing nuances and agreements. Farzaneh On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:07 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

Hi Kurt and All,

The NCSG members of the EPDP Team are still reviewing the final version of the Triage report. Apologies for the late request, but would it be possible to postpone delivery of the report to the GNSO Council until COB, Monday 10 September? We expect to be able to provide feedback (if any) before the weekend is over. I hope this isn’t too troublesome a request.

Thanks.

Amr

...

On Sep 4, 2018, at 8:54 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone:

Attached is a redline and clean version of the Triage report. There is no need to review this before today’s meeting.

I have taken out all the Issue Summaries in order to simplify the report and amended the high-level themes in line with the comments.

Let me know your thoughts. I plan to send this out this week.

Kurt

_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team <gnso-EPDP-Triage-final-report-20180831(clean).docx><gnso-EPDP-Triage-final-report-20180831.docx>

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