[ALAC] EPDP Statements from others

[Justine Chew]

I have just seen an updated Chairs Consensus Designation Table as at 30
July. Would that be an accurate summation, in your opinion?

Thanks,
Justine
------


On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> Of the 9 groups on the EPDP, 7 have now either issued statements or
> given their level of consensus on the report. Not yet seen are the
> NCSG or the ISPCP. But the initial consensus level issue by the
> acting Chair who happens to be an NCSG member may indicate their
> level of support. Note that the Chair's assessment came out BEFORE
> any of the other groups spoke up - it was his best estimate.
>
> They make VERY interesting reading, and I strongly suggest that, at
> least for current ALAC members, you read them all.
>
> I am still expecting a GAC and SSAC statement, but it make take a bit
> of time. No idea whether NCSG or ISPCP will submit one.
>
> As expected, those with significant business interests (and paid
> participation!) have made the strongest and most detailed statements.
>
> I note that the level of consensus on some recommendation will be
> interesting. There are 7 groups on the EPDP and it looks like 4 or 5
> may not support certain recommendations. It is not clear how the
> rating of the groups will impact consensus. My understanding is that
> all groups should be given equal weight, so 4 or 5 out of 9 would be
> DIVERGENCE (see the definitions of Consensus at the end of the
> Chair's document).
>
> On the other hand, the NCSG has repeatedly argued that for the groups
> within the GNSO, they must be weighted based on their votes in the
> GNSO Council (not quite but basically NCSG = Ry = Rr = (IPC+BC+ISPC))
> and they have never said how the ACs would be factored into that.
>
> In the past, the GNSO Council has tended to approve recommendations
> with Full Consensus or Consensus. I don't think they have accepted
> recommendation with "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" and
> certainly not "Divergence". Perhaps Cheryl can confirm.
>
> As other things come in, I will forward them.
>
> What we must decide is whether any of this makes us want to either
> revise our statement or add an addendum. My initial inclination is to
> go the addendum route.
>
> Alan_______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20200730/a89cfe8f/attachment.html>