<div dir="ltr">Hi Tomslin<div><br></div><div>Thanks for this. </div><div><br></div><div>The more I am reading this the more I get confused. Why do we need an EPDP for the IGOs issues? <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Why can't we just wait until the RPM phase 2 starts? Why didn't they wait? Their charter even says: "The<b><i> IGO Work Track will work in parallel with ongoing work</i></b> in the RPM PDP, in accordance with the
timeline, work plan, deliverables and methodologies outlined in this Addendum."</span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span>I am unclear what other policies they want to come up with or that they need to come up<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> with. According to the bylaws (Annex A-1), the <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexA1">EPDP has to convene based on the following criteria</a>:</span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">[(1) to address a narrowly defined policy issue that was identified and scoped after either the adoption of a </span><abbr title="Generic Names Supporting Organization" style="box-sizing:border-box;unicode-bidi:bidi-override;direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px dotted rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:initial;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">GNSO</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> policy recommendation by the Board or the implementation of such an adopted recommendation; or (2) to create new or additional recommendations for a specific policy issue that had been substantially scoped previously such that extensive, pertinent background information already exists, e.g. (a) in an Issue Report for a possible </span><abbr title="Policy Development Process" style="box-sizing:border-box;unicode-bidi:bidi-override;direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px dotted rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:initial;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">PDP</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> that was not initiated; (b) as part of a previous </span><abbr title="Policy Development Process" style="box-sizing:border-box;unicode-bidi:bidi-override;direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px dotted rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration-line:none;text-decoration-style:initial;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif">PDP</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif"> that was not completed; or (c) through other projects such as a GGP.]</span></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I have read the document and I do not understand how this WT fulfills the criteria for an EPDP. RPM phase 2 has not even started so which of these criteria does it adhere to? My worry is, and this is a way international orgs and governments function at ICANN, that they convened this group to get what they couldn't otherwise get in the previous recommendations, convened this group even before RPM phase 2 started and now we are looking to accommodate them somehow. If what I am laying out is more or less accurate, then I don't think this is an epdp and should be treated as such. </span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span><br><br>On Saturday, July 31, 2021, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" target="_blank">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear members,</div><div><br></div><div>I bring to your attention the proposal below, relating to the IGO Work Track which was established with the following charter [ <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-09jan20-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-09jan20-en.pdf</a> ] and on the assumption that RPM Phase 2 work would have started shortly after completion of Phase 1 of the RPM PDP.</div><div><br></div><div>The IGO WT is on track to deliver its initial report in September 2021. However, there are concerns that any
forthcoming policy recommendations
from the IGO Work
Track will not have a procedural standing as the Work Track is currently orphaned and it is not known when RPM Phase 2 will start. <br></div><div><br></div><div>
With this in mind, the GNSO council leadership is proposing that to ensure that any forthcoming Consensus Policy recommendations
from the IGO Work
Track have proper procedural standing, an expedited PDP
(EPDP) on IGOs be convened. Further, this EPDP should be convened with the same
scope of work and structure as the IGO Work Track. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Therefore, the Council leadership would like to know by 6 August 2021 (in 5 days time) if there are any objections to this proposal from NCSG.</div><div><br></div><div>Please let us know what you think.<br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div>Tomslin<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px">@Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/tomsleen" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/tomsleen</a></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px">@LinkedIn: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/</a><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">---------- Forwarded message ---------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Mary Wong via council</b> <span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>></span><br>Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 at 02:19<br>Subject: [council] PLEASE READ: Request from Council leadership in relation to the IGO Work Track<br>To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a> <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br></div><br><br>
<div link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SENT ON BEHALF OF THE GNSO COUNCIL LEADERSHIP TEAM<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Councilors,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please review the request below from Philippe and the GNSO Council leadership team. Thank you.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;padding:0in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After the 22 July Council meeting, leadership has given additional thought to the agenda item regarding the IGO Work Track. As we discussed during the call, there were three components that we wanted to bring to your attention:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">The need for a Program Change Request as a result of public comment moratorium – there were no objections on the call.<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal"><b>The ability of the IGO Work Track to develop Consensus Policy recommendations – this is the area we will focus on for immediate next steps.</b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal">Whether the IGO Work Track’s draft recommendations are “generally consistent” with the original IGO PDP Working Group’s recommendations #1-4 – to be addressed in the future. <u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Council leadership considers #1 above as done and would like to consider #2 and #3 separately: #2 should be considered now and #3 can be considered at a later date.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For #2, Council leadership has consulted with staff and, as a result, we request that the Council consider what appears to be the most sensible path forward to ensure that any forthcoming Consensus Policy recommendations from the IGO Work
Track have proper procedural standing; viz., convene an expedited PDP (EPDP) on IGOs. Further, this EPDP should be convened with the same scope of work and structure as is currently outlined in the <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-09jan20-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!qoFL48st4hQY6S6OUWdtwEIHG_wLhtwsiPZOB6JFhlUmAB4ZdQKI0PUXPG9ISxrgJGwmbio$" target="_blank">Addendum
[gnso.icann.org]</a>, to the greatest extent possible. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What this would entail is: (1) preparing an EPDP initiation request; and (2) migrating the content of the Addendum to an EPDP Charter. <b>Please consult with your respective SG/Cs and note any objections to this proposed direction by 6
August 2021.</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Philippe<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>