[NCSG-PC] Comment on Membership structure of EPDP

[farzaneh badii]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180630/9240e2d3/attachment.htm>