[NCSG-PC] EPDP Membership Composition Options

[Ayden Férdeline]

Thanks for the comments and insights, David-

While I am broadly in favour of open, bottom-up, participatory processes, the numbers are not really in our favour here though. What I like about the CCWG-Light model, for instance, is that it caps the participation of other, well-resourced stakeholder groups. I think it would be manageable for us to find three active participants, but probably not many more than that, whereas other stakeholder groups might be able to get 100 paralegals onto a call.

As for leadership composition, I tend to think we need an external facilitator (i.e. a trade negotiator) to chair the ePDP, and would not think it would be manageable to have a leadership team with representation from all stakeholder groups. That might work in the traditional GNSO PDPs, but I'm worried it won't work here, where we only have 3 1/2 months to get a first draft of a report together. But I'm open to ideas!

There are also likely to be budgetary constraints, though what budget we are actually working with is unclear, as are the working methods of this ePDP. It would not surprise me if there was at least one face-to-face, however.

Finally, I liked the idea which Stephanie suggested of the ePDP having an independent mediator to facilitate resolving conflicts, too.

-Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 28 May 2018 12:15 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> I don’t like option 6. It sets a bad precedent for a lot of reasons, and it might give us some temporary leverage but I think it has many disadvantages, including some for the the pro-privacy advocacy side. I broadly agree with most of the issues Rafik brings up.
>
> I think the CCWG model is a reasonable choice, though its a compromise in many ways. Our biggest asset is the strength of our arguments, and having our strongest advocates (especially, but not only, Stephanie) always able to participate in relevant discussion is vital for us.
>
> If we do go for something more like a standard PDP model, or a more open CCWG, I would strongly advise from our RDS experience that 1) the leadership team that represented all SGs was a very useful model and 2) such a leadership team should be more empowered to control process by consensus decision, and to control participants if they are not constructive. I also think that the rules in the charter of the RDS WG that restricted the extent to which we could separate into sub-teams were very unhelpful, and the RDS could have made a lot more progress if we were able to push some issues into small sub-teams that could deep dive on some tricky issues - and then have the leadership restrict the extent to which those issues could be revisited by people who had no new arguments but just wished to revisit previous ones more forcefully.
> I also think that a large amount of ‘parallelisation’ of the process, while it presents challenges in an area where there is a lot of interconnectedness between issues, is really the only practical way to get all the work needed done. So I’d argue for a larger group, with the ability for multiple sub-teams. I also think that while the small number of participants is a natural reaction the problem of the RDS WG, putting the entire responsibility of the process onto a small number of people, especially ones who already have other responsibilities, is a recipe for burnout and disaster.
>
> I’m not entirely giving up on the straight PDP model, but the RDS WG certainly showed some of its flaws fairly harshly.
>
> David
>
>> On 28 May 2018, at 6:52 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks, Ayden for the document.
>> one problem with option 6 is that the council composition will change with the election for the different groups. another issue is that doesn't take into consideration the expertise expected for this topic and may put more workload on the council. the council was more involved in policy doing before but that was found problematic and that is why we got this separation between policy making and policy management. Moreover, the council leadership itself will change as Heather and Donna are term-limited and we have no idea who will replace them.
>>
>> I think most of the options take into account the composition issue and try to resolve it based on the experience from RDS WG. I think the CCWG minus (should be renamed as CCWG can be misleading) can be acceptable allowing us to appoint our experts who can commit time and focus on the issue. I understand we can argue about the number of representatives and the right size for the group (what can be the right number for "small"?)but at the end what matters is being consistent in term of participation from our side and being strategical.
>> no idea what can be an option 7 and how much we can be creative. it may be even counter-productive without knowing other SG/C reactions. Anyway, everything is open for now.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le lun. 28 mai 2018 à 03:38, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> So on our recent PC call, Farzaneh suggested that we create a spreadsheet and list the positives and negatives of all of the different ePDP composition options. I've created a Google Doc now, and would encourage you to help populate it with more positive/negatives.
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1X0aPWrZHzRNRoZgwByDK-NdzE9E-R8HddbD2pVJVBx0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> I like Option 6 (Committee of the Whole); I think that would work well for us, in terms of representation - except that we lose Stephanie in a few months, as she is term limited on the Council, and we would therefore lose our most powerful voice on this topic.
>>>
>>> But, above are the options, and we can even propose an Option 7...
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180528/5b5b838c/attachment.htm>