<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p>This "equal representation by Constituency" goes back to the bad
old days of early ICANN. There were no SGs (as there not yet
competitive registries and registrars) and we were always
outnumbered and outvoted 3:1 -- IPC, BC (IPC business reps), and
ISPC (IPC tech people) -- and then NCUC. It's utterly unfair and
of course designed to let them do unbalanced things.</p>
<p>In Panama, we of course heard the rallying cry for representation
of "WHOIS users" (esp. from the GAC). Hence the call for excessive
constituency representation, I assume. But GDPR is about the
fundamental rights of data subjects -- and that's who we
represent-- registrants. So, of course, we need data subject
representatives present and in the room in fair and balanced
numbers to represent registrant rights and interests. Fair is
fair.</p>
<p>And transcriptions -- absolutely critical to a) following the
discussion of the EPDP by the world, and b) for those laboring in
the trenches of EPDP to rapidly catch up when they miss a meeting
(as it will be absolutely impossible to attend them all. It is
far, far faster to review a transcript then to listen to the whole
of the MP3 recording. In the few RPM WG calls I have had to miss,
it's always the transcript that I scan to catch up with the points
made. Real volunteers needs these tools -- and so does the
Community watching this ultra-rapid process. <br>
</p>
<p>And chair statements -- of course public! That way the entire
world can lobby them in public (because so much of the world is
already lobbying these potential chair candidates in private). <br>
</p>
<p>Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for
the critical corrections you are fighting to make!</p>
<p>Best, Kathy</p>
<p>p.s. CC'ing Milton as he will remember the "three constituencies
that were one" -- my name for the IPC/BC/ISPC of the early days.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:637093f6-e794-4566-a0fc-850cb0ea07bd@mail.utoronto.ca">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">When I made my
intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire
council list) my focus and concern was on not letting the
business community get out of balance with the GNSO voting
status quo. As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up
and they have been attempting to minimize us for years, we
should IMHO be watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or
some other ratio seems risky to me....the contracted parties
are at 3 and 3, I think we should try to keep the GNSO
voting balance, recognizing that we have the advisory
councils in there which does put us further into a minority
position. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">My colleague Tara
Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy
COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed
interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good
choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime
guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know
who I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that
getting more people is not as important as getting the right
people.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Steph</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">PS for those who
were not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note
that Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is
representing the top 50 countries in the world on
privacy....now as I have tried to point out, we should be
careful what we ask for in training. I dont want the
privacy counsel at Perkins Cole coming in to brief the
EPDP....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">And to repeat, the
COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That
would be great.</font></font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH5sTh=fJ8QUFQ6-ePerFWep7U_mKx9Cxi9-ZmN5OHPc0Xm8aA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can
argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is
the right number as it is not vote-based, however we can
suggest follow to follow council composition. The only
drawback is that makes the team quite big in term of size.
The other option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use
that for negotiation. I guess proposing first option
(council model) can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each)
at the end. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">With regard to AC rep, while we can argue
for 1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they
want to participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for
5 reps. So 3 would be a compromise. I understand there is
desire to have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how
much it is feasible. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not
enough active, something to have in mind when we will do
selection.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Rafik </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii
<<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">Dear all, </font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">I checked the mailing
list of the EPDP, and I think our council
members have to make the issue with the latest
EPDP membership structure quite clear.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif">Keith Drazek says in the
email that: </font>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><i><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)</font></i></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members.</font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG.</font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. </font>
</pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. </font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members </font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">(I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. </font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></pre>
<pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></pre>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Dear Keith,
Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document?
If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter?
Thanks,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
><i> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">icann at ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thank you for preparing this, Keith.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate).
</i>><i>
</i>><i> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group."
</i>><i>
</i>><i> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus."
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thank you again for working on this, Keith.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Best wishes,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Ayden Férdeline
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
</i>>><i> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">epdp-dt at icann.org</a>> wrote:
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Hi all,
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution.
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Please send comments!!
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Thanks,
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Keith</i></pre>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_-3995260206717988036m_-8926464735439745194gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_-3995260206717988036gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<!--'"--><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br />
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virus-free. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>