<div>Hi Ayden and all,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any plagiarism taking place. 😉</div><div><br></div><div>It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board. </div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again. </div><div><br></div><div>Amr<caret></caret></div><div><br></div><div id="protonmail_mobile_signature_block"><div>Sent from Mobile</div></div> <div><br></div><div><br></div>On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" class="">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"> <div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on behalf of the NCSG. <br><br>With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent?<br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user"><div>Ayden Férdeline<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><i>The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the
comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying
Recommendation 12.<br><br>Recommendation 12 received sufficient support
within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business
Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would
object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a
recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the
ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally
correct.<br><br>Discussions on substantive policy recommendations
are meant 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, the recommendations were voted on by
the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its
consideration.</i><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>Hi,<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">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.<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf" class="">Final Report</a> (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).<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">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.<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">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.<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Thanks.<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Amr<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class=""><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Begin forwarded message:<br></div><div><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">From: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Darcy Southwell" <<a href="mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com" class="">darcy.southwell@endurance.com</a>></span><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">Subject: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations</b></span><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">Date: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2</span><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">To: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Drazek, Keith" <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" class="">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>></span><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">Cc: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" class="">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" class="">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a>></span><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b class="">Reply-To: </b></span></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Darcy Southwell" <<a href="mailto:darcy.southwell@endurance.com" class="">darcy.southwell@endurance.com</a>></span><br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Thanks you, Keith. <br></div><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><br></div><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">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.<br></div><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;"><br></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia, serif">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, th<span style="font-size:small">e 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. </span>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. </span><br></div><div style="font-size: small;"><span style="color:rgb(34, 34, 34)"><span style="font-family:georgia, serif"></span></span><br></div><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Best,<br></div><div style="font-family: georgia, serif; font-size: small;">Darcy<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</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 class="" lang="EN-US"><div><p>Hi Marie,<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday’s Council call.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>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. <u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>Best,<u class=""></u><br></p><p>Keith<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p></p><div><b class="">From:</b> Marie Pattullo <<a href="mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be" class="">marie.pattullo@aim.be</a>> <br></div><div> <b class="">Sent:</b> Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM<br></div><div> <b class="">To:</b> Drazek, Keith <<a href="mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com" class="">kdrazek@verisign.com</a>><br></div><div> <b class="">Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" class="">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br></div><div> <b class="">Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations<u class=""></u><br></div><p></p></div></div><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">Hi Keith,<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">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.<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">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. <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">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.<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">Looking forward to the discussion!<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">Thanks<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB">Marie<u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p><span style="" class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><div class=""><div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in" class=""><p></p><div><b class="">From:</b> council <<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org" class="">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>> <b class="">On Behalf Of </b>Drazek, Keith via council<br></div><div> <b class="">Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM<br></div><div> <b class="">To:</b> <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br></div><div> <b class="">Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" class="">gnso-secs@icann.org</a><br></div><div> <b class="">Subject:</b> [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations<u class=""></u><br></div><p></p></div></div><p><span class="" lang="EN-GB"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span><br></p><p>Hi all,<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>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.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>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.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>Please review before our Council meeting.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO.<u class=""></u><br></p><p><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u><br></p><p>Best,<u class=""></u><br></p><p>Keith<u class=""></u><br></p></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div> council mailing list<br></div><div> <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" class="">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br></div><div> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer" class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br></div><div> <br></div><div> _______________________________________________<br></div><div> 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" class="">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" class="">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.<br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>