[NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP

Tue Jul 3 14:54:50 EEST 2018

The same people questioning why we want transcripts are the same people who see nothing wrong with an unbalanced working group, where we have one-third the number of seats as the CSG. I think they are being quite transparent -- the thought of transcribing a meeting is unbearably expensive for them, but flying an extra 12 people (6 from the CSG and an extra 6 from the SO/ACs) for the three face-to-face meetings, the first of which will be a fortnight long, is at least in public of no concern to them.

—Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 3 July 2018 6:49 AM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> Either equal representation by SG, or mirroring GNSO Council numbers, is fine (and considering how much this gets into the details of contracts etc, equal representation from CPH is probably better).
> The ‘numbers by constituency’ nonsense is always the CSG trying to get more numbers. And always should be resisted.
>
> Kathy is totally right. We need to push back hard.
>
> And also go looking far and wide for good people to be on this. We were very stretched in RDS, I don’t think we can just look inside our group of core activists for representation on this group.
>
> And transcriptions - yes, this is important. Transcripts are the best way to catch up, they are the best way to double check on what was actually agreed to, they are a vital tool for people outside the core process to be able to review and deal with specific issues etc. Important for transparency. And the cost is small compared to many other things we are talking about. I don’t know why anyone is querying this.
>
> David
>
>> On 1 Jul 2018, at 11:56 pm, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Tx you for your labors in this area -- and fingers crossed for the critical corrections you are fighting to make!
>>
>> Best, Kathy
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> On 7/1/2018 8:37 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> cheers Steph
>>>
>>> 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....
>>>
>>> And to repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group.  That would be great.
>>>
>>> On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not enough active, something to have in mind when we will do selection.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith Drazek says in the email that:
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> (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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden Férdeline <
>>>>> [icann at ferdeline.com](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for preparing this, Keith.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group."
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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."
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you again for working on this, Keith.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <
>>>>> [epdp-dt at icann.org](https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please send comments!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
>> Virus-free. [www.avast.com](https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180703/1e9302c7/attachment.htm>