Hello Bruna. I understand your concerns regarding the lack of prior briefing regarding the document circulation, and I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. However, I would like to explain that the decision to not circulate the document before responding was not taken lightly. I was supposed to circulate the 87 pages document during the 10-day window to ask for your consent before replying to the consensus call. I didn’t do this due to specific personal reasons and constraints that led to this decision, which I am more than willing to clarify during our upcoming NCSG membership meeting. Also there was no litigation or any contentious from the initial documentations (recommendation) shared with you during and after the public comment period of the phase 1 report. I apologize, this was never intentional or serving any personal interest. However, I find your choice of words in addressing this matter to be quite hard, offensive and discouraging. As a representative of our community, I dedicate 90 minutes each week as a volunteer to attending our weekly call, alongside managing other commitments and reading tons of charter questions and technical literature. I strive to do my best in representing our collective interests, and receiving such feedback, no matter the mistake (even after my previous email), is disconcerting and does not contribute to a constructive dialogue. I hope we can address this issue thoroughly during our membership meeting and find a way to move forward positively because we are more than 3 members representing NCSG in this EPDP. I joined to support not to serve any personal interests. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if we could refrain from further exchange of "words" on this matter. Shalom, Emmanuel Le lun. 23 oct. 2023 à 17:14, Bruna Martins dos Santos < [log in to unmask]> a écrit : > Emmanuel, > > I think this is a dangerous precedent and the lack of accountability on > your behalf prior to “giving consent” is something concerning. > > NCSG policy committee should’ve been at least briefed on the matter or > received a disclaimer about the short timeline and deadlines. > > I hope this is an issue we can address at NCSG membership Meeting this > week. > > Kind regards, > Bruna > > Emmanuel Vitus <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am Mo. 23. Okt. 2023 um > 16:44: > >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I hope this email finds you well. I would like to inform you that I have >> given our consent to the Leadership Proposed Consensus Designation on >> EPDP-IDNs Phase 1 final recommendations. >> >> >> >> The Consensus Call process for the EPDP-IDNs Phase 1 final >> recommendations opened on Thursday, 12 October, following our meeting #100. >> This process provided us with a 10-day window, ending on Saturday, 21 >> October, to review the proposed consensus designations and indicate our >> acceptance or objection. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, my attendance at the Global IGF and subsequent return with >> illness resulted in a clash with this timeframe. I was unable to circulate >> the document for review within our constituency before the deadline. >> >> >> >> However, given the absence of litigation regarding non-commercial >> concerns, I took the responsibility and proceeded to give our consent to >> the proposed consensus designations. I have attached the Leadership >> Proposed Consensus Designation to this email for your reference and peer >> review. Your feedback will be highly appreciated, as it will ensure that we >> are all on the same page and fully aware of the consensus designations we >> have agreed upon. >> >> >> >> For your convenience, I have also attached the Phase 1 Final >> Recommendations, which contains the sixty-nine (69) recommendations and >> contextual language to be included in the Phase 1 Final Report. I just >> arrived in Hamburg and hope to give more updates during our membership >> session tomorrow. >> >> >> Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. >> >> >> I look forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback. >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Emmanuel >> >