<div>Hi Rafik,<br></div><div><br></div><div>I just want to clarify, to make sure I understand what is option 1 - is this balanced representation? If so, <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/2018-June/000088.html" target="_blank" title="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/epdp-dt/2018-June/000088.html" rel="nofollow">does this email</a> I sent to the drafting team (and which attracted no responses) cover it, or should I send another? Thanks</div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Best wishes,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden <br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On 2 July 2018 12:33 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>to be practical and make those suggestions prior to the drafting team call in Thursday, are you ok with the suggestions (suggesting option 1 first) I made?<br></div><div>if possible, someone else can share them to the drafting team list. we got to be clear about the proposal here so other parties know what is unacceptable for us which is not just a matter of wording. <br></div></div><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div><div><br></div><div><div>Rafik<br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 à 14:58, Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto"><div><div>Hi,<br></div><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. <br></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. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection.<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rafik <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div dir="auto" class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Dear all, </span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family: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.</span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Keith Drazek says in the email that: </span><br></div><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><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)</span></i><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family: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.</span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family: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.</span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13px">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. </span></span><br></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)"><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family: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. </span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family: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 </span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family: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. </span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></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)"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></span><br></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)"><br></pre></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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 target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt">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 target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt">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><br></pre><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="m_3121565210145262211m_-3995260206717988036m_-8926464735439745194gmail_signature" dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div>-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="m_3121565210145262211m_-3995260206717988036gmail_signature" dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div> NCSG-PC mailing list<br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>