Thanks, Amr for your excellent point.
I just want to say here that Amr's suggestion is under discussion at
the Policy Committee level and we should be responding to this thread
on the Council list soon, once we have agreed on the phrasing.
Regards,
Arsene
2019-07-25 17:44 UTC+02:00, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
<[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Amr,
>
> Thanks for the heads up. I hope the Council sticks to its guns.
>
> Best,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:24 AM Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I’m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because
>> I’m
>> concerned with the Business Constituency’s attempt at amending a
>> recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary
>> Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>>
>> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well
>> as
>> recommendation 12 in the phase 1 Final Report
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf>
>> (concerning
>> the “registrant organization” field), which were not adopted by the ICANN
>> Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the
>> Board’s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now
>> drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft
>> attached to this email).
>>
>> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This
>> recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be
>> included
>> in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the
>> groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions
>> on
>> the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between
>> the
>> GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct.
>> Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place
>> at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy
>> development
>> process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and
>> recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to
>> the ICANN Board for its consideration.
>>
>> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business
>> Constituency’s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our
>> own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *"Darcy Southwell" <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject: **Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on
>> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations*
>> *Date: *July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2
>> *To: *"Drazek, Keith" <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Cc: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>,
>> "[log in to unmask]"
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Reply-To: *"Darcy Southwell" <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Thanks you, Keith.
>>
>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the
>> Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus
>> recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to
>> modifying
>> Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option. The Council should seek
>> to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and
>> resubmit
>> the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval. Therefore, RrSG
>> supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding
>> Recommendation 12.
>>
>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been
>> quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2
>> is
>> drafted consistent with applicable laws. In its Final Report, the EPDP
>> Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the
>> EPDP. In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to
>> engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the
>> work. That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can
>> even
>> begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2. Further, it is not typical
>> for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific
>> tasks. It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and
>> coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work. So far, the EPDP
>> Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized
>> Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and
>> with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors. At this point, the
>> RrSG
>> sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2
>> work ahead of the chartered work.
>>
>> Best,
>> Darcy
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marie,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during
>>> yesterday’s Council call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On your second point below, related to the Board’s treatment of
>>> Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council’s remit to
>>> suggest,
>>> or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation
>>> delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council
>>> to
>>> the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board
>>> accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call
>>> for
>>> the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with
>>> our
>>> respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Marie Pattullo <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM
>>> *To:* Drazek, Keith <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on
>>> EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Keith,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I’m afraid I haven’t been able to discuss
>>> this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC
>>> does have some concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we
>>> have
>>> problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to
>>> Janis’ letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction
>>> to
>>> reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it’s
>>> not on the Team’s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum,
>>> Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board
>>> action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really
>>> do
>>> need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don’t agree that it should just be
>>> resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as
>>> the
>>> ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option.
>>> There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to
>>> update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need
>>> that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to the discussion!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* council <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Drazek,
>>> Keith via council
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP
>>> Phase 1 Recommendations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the
>>> attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the
>>> two
>>> EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board
>>> during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on
>>> the
>>> issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a
>>> common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal
>>> action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to
>>> avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter
>>> will pave the way to a clear resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please review before our Council meeting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Keith
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> council mailing list
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>>> accordance
>>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0
2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member
|
