NCSG Minority report on the EPDP phase 2a final report

[Stephanie E Perrin]

Everybody is, and while I take Milton's point, since our arguments are 
not repeated in the final report, we feel rather strongly that we have 
to reiterate them, like it or not.  Just for fun, I am attaching the GAC 
minority report, for information's sake.  In response to it, I added the 
following paragraph to our statetment, as a penultimate paragraph:

We note that those parties who pushed the hardest for making this 
distinction between legal and natural persons also pushed hard for a 
field or fields to input the data.Given that the recommendation will 
remain that it is a voluntary field, and it is up to the contracted 
parties, whose business models vary enormously, how they use the 
field(s), we do not believe that recommendations concerning the 
precision of the field are useful.If ICANN undertakes to instruct the 
IETF, for instance, how to standardize the field, how is the distinction 
and the collection and disclosure of the relevant data necessary to make 
that distinction still voluntary?This is a matter to be left to private 
sector best practice.

WE had the first meeting of the COICC group on improvements this week.  
I am wondering if we need to reinstate reply comments, to avoid this 
kind of shenanigans in the future, thoughts welcome.  I do agree with 
Milton in principle, but am not prepared to have all our arguments lost 
as the only SG who does not provide a summary of their arguments for the 
record.

cheers STeph

On 2021-09-10 1:01 p.m., farzaneh badii wrote:
> So is everybody (all the stakeholders) each filing a minority report? 
> Then how is that a minority report… maybe they should call it 
> something else…
>
> On Friday, September 10, 2021, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu 
> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>
>     First, I appreciate the incredibly hard work Stephanie has done on
>     the EPDP. My contribution trailed off in the past two months as it
>     became clear that the EPDP was deadlocked, and that the consensus
>     outcomes would be acceptable. Also deeply appreciate the
>     contribution made by Manju, who really stepped up in the past year
>     or so.
>
>     Basically we are keeping the redactions of phase 1 in place, there
>     will be no legal/natural differentiation.
>
>     As Steph knows, I do not support making a minority statement. It
>     is probably hard for our ordinary members to understand, but after
>     being on that PDP for (what is it now?) 3 years rehashing the same
>     arguments, it is almost irresistable to use the minority
>     statements to carry on the same fruitless arguments. But I think
>     we should be mature and calm and refrain from that.
>
>     The idea that minority statements "reinforce the views" of
>     different stakeholders is not correct, I think. They are just a
>     bunch of words appended to a report that no one will read unless
>     they already agree with them. What matters is the substance of the
>     report - and the implementation decisions - which we will have to
>     keep a close eye on.
>
>     --MM
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>     <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Stephanie E
>     Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, September 9, 2021 11:26 PM
>     *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>     <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>     <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
>     *Subject:* NCSG Minority report on the EPDP phase 2a final report
>     Dear colleagues,
>
>     Man-ju Chen and I have been working on a proposed minority
>     statement for
>     the final report of the EPDP phase 2a group.  We have met over the
>     last
>     9 months, the final meeting was last Thursday, and since it
>     appears that
>     most SGs and ACs are drafting minority statements to reinforce their
>     views, we have crafted a quick two page brief that reiterates many of
>     the points we have been trying to make, that are not particularly
>     visible in the final report.  We can of course comment publicly, but
>     that is not as visible.
>
>     We are on deadline for tomorrow, I do apologize for the last minute
>     notice but work has been quite hectic on this committee. Your
>     comments
>     are welcome.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Stephanie Perrin and Man-ju Chen
>
>
>
> -- 
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210910/88afa04c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gac-minority-statement-epdp-2a-10sep21.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 123162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210910/88afa04c/attachment.pdf>