<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:#0b5394"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)">On 5 November 2016 at 02:47, </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><<a href="mailto:bzs@theworld.com" target="_blank">bzs@theworld.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
The problem in this discusssion is there is no meeting of the minds on<br>
what the problem really is.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">I argree fully. But the current process forces everything to fit into the GNSO's assumptions and worldview. This forces outsider to either bend their message/request to fit with that worldview (in which case the resolution is also unsatisfactory) or dispense with the process altogether (which is at the core of the current "why won't _they_ participate in _our_ process" whinging).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">The current design of the PDP is inherently biased against participants that are not GNSO stakeholder groups. Until this is addressed I anticipate an increase in the number (and intensity) of disputes that can't be addressed by ICANN processes in a manner suitable to all parties. This will inevitably lead to more circumvention attempts, which threatens stability.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">- Evan</div></div></div>
</div></div>