Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation
For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC): 6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism You may indicate support for the other recommendations. The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant. As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report. PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE. Alan At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.
I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.
I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
Best Regards,
Rafik
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi all, Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope it’s just me. The consensus call does not ask for support, but for objections. You are now saying that the 4 recommendations you specify are not supported by ALAC. That is irrelevant. There is no need for us to support the recommendations. Are you saying that ALAC objects? If so, based on this and other responses, why don’t we follow Volker’s recommendation and just take the 4 recommendations that Alan mentioned out of the report entirely. I for one think that the entire exercise is missing the point if we can’t find rough consensus for some basic features, but maybe - if we do not take the recommendations off the table here - or even the entire set of recommendations as a consequence, it’s going to be done elsewhere :-( Best, Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 18:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC):
6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism
You may indicate support for the other recommendations.
The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant.
As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report.
PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE.
Alan
At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.
I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.
I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
Best Regards,
Rafik
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
At 2020-07-30 03:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Hi all, Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope itâ?Ts just me.
The consensus call does not ask for support, but for objections.
You are now saying that the 4 recommendations you specify are not supported by ALAC. That is irrelevant. There is no need for us to support the recommendations. Are you saying that ALAC objects?
YES. ALAC OBJECTS. I am sorry if DOES NOT SUPPORT was not taken to be equivalent to OBJECT.
If so, based on this and other responses, why donâ?Tt we follow Volkerâ?Ts recommendation and just take the 4 recommendations that Alan mentioned out of the report entirely.
The report makes it clear that the SSAD recommendations are linked. Removing auomation , evolution and financial aspects does not leave something that makes any sense. It is a glorified ticketing system and one could buy/build one of those with a LOT less trouble.
I for one think that the entire exercise is missing the point if we canâ?Tt find rough consensus for some basic features, but maybe - if we do not take the recommendations off the table here - or even the entire set of recommendations as a consequence, itâ?Ts going to be done elsewhere :-(
What "elsewhere" did you have in mind?
Best, Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 18:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC):
6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism
You may indicate support for the other recommendations.
The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant.
As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report.
PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE.
Alan
At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.
I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.
I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
Best Regards,
Rafik
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Alan,
YES. ALAC OBJECTS. I am sorry if DOES NOT SUPPORT was not taken to be equivalent to OBJECT.
No need to shout! Even if it is the final stretch we should all try to remain civil.
The report makes it clear that the SSAD recommendations are linked. Removing auomation , evolution and financial aspects does not leave something that makes any sense. It is a glorified ticketing system and one could buy/build one of those with a LOT less trouble.
Now you are confusing me! You are objecting against the recommendations but want them to stay in the report? I thought objecting to them means you do not support them. It sounds a bit like wanting to keep the cake and eating it too. IMHO, we should eat the cake while it is fresh, it tastes better that way! Either you support the recommendation or you object to its inclusion in the report. I hope we can all find our way to supporting the compromise that was reached.
What "elsewhere" did you have in mind?
there always is the status quo! -- -- Volker A. Greimann General Counsel and Policy Manager *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH* T: +49 6894 9396901 M: +49 6894 9396851 F: +49 6894 9396851 W: www.key-systems.net Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835 CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358.
Hi Alan, thanks for that clarification. Re your question on the „elsewhere“, I was thinking of the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board. If I were on the gCouncil or ICANN Board, I would think: Considerable parts of the team (including ALAC) think the recommendations need to be adopted as a package, but they object to critical parts of the package. That can only mean that they really object to the entire package or leave us with something that cannot be implemented or deprives the entire concept of essential parts. You are right, without the components you object to, we have more or less a glorified ticketing system. The Board might say that fiduciary duties prevent them from greenlighting the recommendations and the expenses and efforts that would be required to implement them. To be clear, I do not like all aspects of the report, but still I have suggested to the ISPCP to not object to make sure we have a package that makes sense and can be further evolved. I truly believe that we will get this to something meaningful and valuable over time. Basically killing it now because it does not go far enough from the beginning is sad to watch. Best Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 21:40 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
At 2020-07-30 03:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
Hi all, Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope itâ?Ts just me.
The consensus call does not ask for support, but for objections.
You are now saying that the 4 recommendations you specify are not supported by ALAC. That is irrelevant. There is no need for us to support the recommendations. Are you saying that ALAC objects?
YES. ALAC OBJECTS. I am sorry if DOES NOT SUPPORT was not taken to be equivalent to OBJECT.
If so, based on this and other responses, why donâ?Tt we follow Volkerâ?Ts recommendation and just take the 4 recommendations that Alan mentioned out of the report entirely.
The report makes it clear that the SSAD recommendations are linked. Removing auomation , evolution and financial aspects does not leave something that makes any sense. It is a glorified ticketing system and one could buy/build one of those with a LOT less trouble.
I for one think that the entire exercise is missing the point if we canâ?Tt find rough consensus for some basic features, but maybe - if we do not take the recommendations off the table here - or even the entire set of recommendations as a consequence, itâ?Ts going to be done elsewhere :-(
What "elsewhere" did you have in mind?
Best, Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 18:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC):
6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism
You may indicate support for the other recommendations.
The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant.
As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report.
PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE.
Alan
At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.
I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.
I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
Best Regards,
Rafik
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi all, thanks for the comments and clarifications. you will find attached the revised consensus designation table based on the clarifications regarding conditional support i.e. only keeping objection on recommendations or part of : 6, 9, 14, 18. I also updated the consensus designation for recommendation #19 as RrSG representative indicated to me they have no objection to Laureen's proposal and that removes GAC objection. Please review the table again and as reminder that the deadline is 31 July 12:00PM UTC. Best Regards, Rafik Le ven. 31 juil. 2020 à 04:57, Thomas Rickert <epdp@gdpr.ninja> a écrit :
Hi Alan, thanks for that clarification.
Re your question on the „elsewhere“, I was thinking of the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board.
If I were on the gCouncil or ICANN Board, I would think:
Considerable parts of the team (including ALAC) think the recommendations need to be adopted as a package, but they object to critical parts of the package. That can only mean that they really object to the entire package or leave us with something that cannot be implemented or deprives the entire concept of essential parts.
You are right, without the components you object to, we have more or less a glorified ticketing system. The Board might say that fiduciary duties prevent them from greenlighting the recommendations and the expenses and efforts that would be required to implement them.
To be clear, I do not like all aspects of the report, but still I have suggested to the ISPCP to not object to make sure we have a package that makes sense and can be further evolved. I truly believe that we will get this to something meaningful and valuable over time. Basically killing it now because it does not go far enough from the beginning is sad to watch.
Best Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 21:40 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca :
Hi all, Firstly, Alan, you are confusing me and I hope itâ?Ts just me.
The consensus call does not ask for support, but for objections.
You are now saying that the 4 recommendations you specify are not supported by ALAC. That is irrelevant. There is no need for us to support
At 2020-07-30 03:24 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote: the recommendations. Are you saying that ALAC objects?
YES. ALAC OBJECTS. I am sorry if DOES NOT SUPPORT was not taken to be equivalent to OBJECT.
If so, based on this and other responses, why donâ?Tt we follow Volkerâ?Ts recommendation and just take the 4 recommendations that Alan mentioned out of the report entirely.
The report makes it clear that the SSAD recommendations are linked. Removing auomation , evolution and financial aspects does not leave something that makes any sense. It is a glorified ticketing system and one could buy/build one of those with a LOT less trouble.
I for one think that the entire exercise is missing the point if we canâ?Tt find rough consensus for some basic features, but maybe - if we do not take the recommendations off the table here - or even the entire set of recommendations as a consequence, itâ?Ts going to be done elsewhere :-(
What "elsewhere" did you have in mind?
Best, Thomas
Am 30.07.2020 um 18:06 schrieb Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
For the purposes of determining consensus within the report, please indicate that the ALAC does NOT support recommendations (as stated in my original response on 24 July timestamped 15:46 UTC):
6.2 Priority Levels 9 Automation of the SSAD 14 Financial Sustainability 18 Evolution mechanism
You may indicate support for the other recommendations.
The reference to not supporting the entire report is based on the correct statement within the report that all of the SSAD recommendations are linked and inter-dependant.
As noted in the submission of the ALAC statement, the ALAC will continue to consider our position and potentially resubmit a revised statement prior to the deadline of 24 August. We understand that any differences would not be reflected in the Chair's designation of consensus within the report.
PLEASE RE-ISSUE THIS CHART SO WE CAN SEE YOUR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS PRIOR TO THE REPLY DEADLINE.
Alan
At 2020-07-30 06:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the deadline.
I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons. Of course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their input by the deadline.
I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of publication and report submission and shouldnâ?Tt be amended when moving to GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration made to GNSO council but procedures didnâ?Tt envision such a situation of having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have concluded that BC doesnâ?Tt agree to drop the footnote and as result I have taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
Best Regards,
Rafik
Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx" Content-ID: <f_kd8ik4um0> X-Attachment-Id: f_kd8ik4um0
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Rafik Dammak -
Thomas Rickert -
Volker Greimann