[ALAC] EPDP Statements from others

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Jul 30 19:11:49 UTC 2020


I didn't check the other groups but the ALAC was not correct. 
Hopefully next go around.

Alan

At 2020-07-30 06:53 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
>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 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>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/20200730/31567ac9/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list