<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi all, <br>
</p>
<p>I'm sorry for my late comment on this topic. According with the
concerns, I only should say that WT is just in initial steps of
working, there's no major decisions yet. Actually I do not see how
this conversion can change the working structure for the Team, is
just a linking topic to approve its final report and I think the
Addendum it covers it, as Tanya said before, I do not see either
any difference in terms of content about what we are discussing
it. Whether remember good RPM WG it was derivation from Subsequent
Procedures and IGO is like a "child" from RPM discussions. <br>
</p>
<p>We all know that "E" in PDP is almost a joke. <br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Juan <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">El 2/08/21 a las 7:30 a. m., farzaneh
badii escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN1qJvCZgZKcEmWF_G9q3tveSda6WgtWhEAZoAAjj+Sxh5Z-NQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Thanks Tomslin and Tatiana.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Arguing that this group was “orphaned” is like arguing that a
child was orphaned because its mother hasn’t been born and now
we are looking to create a mother for it.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is a reason that the PDP phase 2 didn’t start its
work. Perhaps because it wasn’t even needed. I can guess that
the IGOs issue just like Red Cross working group some years
ago has always been dragged on to give International orgs
whatever they can’t get throughout the PDP. Even if
substantive wise there is no problem with it, I think turning
it into an epdp is not a good precedent and can become
problematic in the future. It can reopen issues. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But I leave that to the leaders to decide. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
On Monday, August 2, 2021, Tatiana Tropina <<a
href="mailto:tatiana.tropina@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">tatiana.tropina@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">Hi all,
<div>thanks, Tomslin, for the explanation. I want to add a
couple of points:</div>
<div>- the suggestion to convert the WT into EPDP was made
solely because the group is already doing its work and
is scheduled to produce the first outcomes, but
procedurally it has no vehicle anymore because RPM phase
1 is finished and Phase 2 hasn't started yet. There is
no clarity as to when Phase 2 is going to start. For the
WT to continue its work, one has to provide it with a
vehicle. This is a purely procedural issue.</div>
<div>- as to the use of this WT for the purpose of
governments and IGOs to take some advantage: I am not
sure that this is the case so far, or at least I haven't
heard any of those concerns from our members who
participate there. If this is the case, I would expect
them to raise those concerns. While I have heard none, I
think the choice is to hang a work of an active group in
the air or provide the WT with a proper vehicle to
continue its work. We chartered the work via an
Addendum, so as long as the EPDP charter strictly
adheres to what is in the initial Addendum, I don't see
much difference in terms of the content of the work. </div>
<div>Warm regards,</div>
<div>Tatiana </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at
00:55, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a
href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Farzaneh,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for responding to this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding your question of what other policies
they want to come up with, my understanding is
that the Work Track is in the middle of
considering an arbitration mechanism in direct
response to Recommendation #5 of the IGO-INGO
Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms
PDP which the council did not <a
href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190418-3"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">approve</a>
in 2019, directing a Work Track to be convened to
develop an appropriate policy solution. Further, I
understand that the proposed mechanisms under
discussion in the Work Track as reported by staff
are the following ( @Juan Manuel Rojas and <a
class="gmail_plusreply"
href="mailto:Stupariu_Ioana@phd.ceu.edu"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">@Ioana
Stupariu</a>, as our appointed members to the
WT, please correct me here if I am wrong) :</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Considering addressing the jurisdictional
issue presented by Recommendation #5 by
proposing that IGOs be exempt from the current
requirement to agree to a Mutual Jurisdiction
(as defined by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy).</li>
<li>Establishing better defined and
determinative eligibility requirements to
demonstrate unregistered rights under the
UDRP.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>To the question of which bylaw criteria for
convening an EPDP this WT meets, the argument is
that the origin and history of the IGO Work Track
can be said to satisfy the criterion: "<i>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</i>". Remember, the Work Track
was convened as a subteam to develop an
appropriate policy solution to Recommendation #5.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To the question regarding why the GNSO council
convened the Work Track before RPM phase 2 was
started, I do not have the complete institutional
memory to say for sure (maybe former members of
the council and folks who've followed this issue
longer can help here), but from what I have read,
I think the council thought RPM Phase 2 would
start shortly and in parallel to the WT, so that
RPM Phase 2 would be used as the procedural
vehicle to adopt the policy solution coming out of
the IGO WT. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<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>I hope this helps
with the discussion.</div>
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>tomslin/</a><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 1 Aug 2021
at 01:45, farzaneh badii <<a
href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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="direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px
dotted
rgb(153,153,153);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="direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px
dotted
rgb(153,153,153);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="direction:ltr;border-bottom:1px
dotted
rgb(153,153,153);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" moz-do-not-send="true">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://gnso.icann.org/sites/<wbr>default/files/file/field-file-<wbr>attach/rpms-charter-addendum-<wbr>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">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
<<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SENT ON
BEHALF OF THE GNSO COUNCIL
LEADERSHIP TEAM</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear
Councilors,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please review
the request below from Philippe
and the GNSO Council leadership
team. Thank you.</p>
<div
style="border-color:currentcolor
currentcolor
windowtext;border-style:none
none solid;border-width:medium
medium 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in
1pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="border:medium
none;padding:0in"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</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></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. </li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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"
moz-do-not-send="true">Addendum
[gnso.icann.org]</a>, to the
greatest extent possible. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Philippe</p>
</div>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>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>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
JUAN MANUEL ROJAS P.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
GNSO Councilor - ICANN
Civil Soc. Rep - CODECTI (Comité Departamental de Ciencia Tecnología e Innovación)
Master IT candidate, UNAD
Registered Linux User No.533108.
Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram/Twitter: @JmanuRojas</pre>
</body>
</html>