Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track

Mon Aug 2 11:32:17 EEST 2021

I am not sure I can agree. The WT was attached to the RPM because it had to
be attached somewhere after one of the recommendations on curative rights
wasn’t adopted. This WT is chartered via an addendum. The group is now
doing its work. Are you saying they should stop doing it just because we
are not sure whether RPM phase 2 is even needed? Saying that the group is
orphaned is a metaphor that reflects a procedural problem: the group can’t
deliver recommendations if it’s not attached to any of the PDPs or
converted into a PDP or EPDP. If we are ready to disregard all the time
people are putting into this work — including our volunteers, too, I’d like
to hear some more substantive arguments.
I am not a big fan of the IGOs otherwise I won’t be here but if NCSG thinks
the work of the group should be paused, I’d like us to be able to explain
why. I don’t have any reasonable explanation so I won’t argue against such
a conversion.
Warm regards
Tatiana

On Mon 2. Aug 2021 at 14:30, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Tomslin and Tatiana.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> But I leave that to the leaders to decide.
>
>
> On Monday, August 2, 2021, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> thanks, Tomslin, for the explanation. I want to add a couple of points:
>> - 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.
>> - 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.
>> Warm regards,
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 00:55, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>>
>>> Thanks for responding to this.
>>>
>>> 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 approve
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190418-3> 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 @Ioana Stupariu <Stupariu_Ioana at phd.ceu.edu>, as our
>>> appointed members to the WT, please correct me here if I am wrong) :
>>>
>>>    1. 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).
>>>    2. Establishing better defined and determinative eligibility
>>>    requirements to demonstrate unregistered rights under the UDRP.
>>>
>>> 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:  "*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*". Remember, the Work Track was convened as a subteam to
>>> develop an appropriate policy solution to Recommendation #5.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps with the discussion.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tomslin
>>> @Twitter: https://twitter.com/tomsleen
>>> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 01:45, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tomslin
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this.
>>>>
>>>> The more I am reading this the more I get confused. Why do we need an
>>>> EPDP for the IGOs issues? Why can't we just wait until the RPM phase 2
>>>> starts? Why didn't they wait? Their charter even says: "The* IGO Work
>>>> Track will work in parallel with ongoing work* in the RPM PDP, in
>>>> accordance with the timeline, work plan, deliverables and methodologies
>>>> outlined in this Addendum."
>>>>
>>>> I am unclear what other policies they want to come up with or that they
>>>> need to come up with. According to the bylaws (Annex A-1), the EPDP
>>>> has to convene based on the following criteria
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexA1>:
>>>>
>>>> [(1) to address a narrowly defined policy issue that was identified and
>>>> scoped after either the adoption of a GNSO 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 PDP that was not initiated; (b) as part of a
>>>> previous PDP that was not completed; or (c) through other projects
>>>> such as a GGP.]
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, July 31, 2021, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear members,
>>>>>
>>>>> I bring to your attention the proposal below, relating to the IGO Work
>>>>> Track which was established with the following charter [
>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-09jan20-en.pdf
>>>>> ] and on the assumption that RPM Phase 2 work would have started shortly
>>>>> after completion of Phase 1 of the RPM PDP.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tomslin
>>>>> @Twitter: https://twitter.com/tomsleen
>>>>> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>> From: Mary Wong via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 at 02:19
>>>>> Subject: [council] PLEASE READ: Request from Council leadership in
>>>>> relation to the IGO Work Track
>>>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SENT ON BEHALF OF THE GNSO COUNCIL LEADERSHIP TEAM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review the request below from Philippe and the GNSO Council
>>>>> leadership team. Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. The need for a Program Change Request as a result of public
>>>>>    comment moratorium – there were no objections on the call.
>>>>>    2. *The ability of the IGO Work Track to develop Consensus Policy
>>>>>    recommendations – this is the area we will focus on for immediate next
>>>>>    steps.*
>>>>>    3. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 Addendum [gnso.icann.org]
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-09jan20-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!qoFL48st4hQY6S6OUWdtwEIHG_wLhtwsiPZOB6JFhlUmAB4ZdQKI0PUXPG9ISxrgJGwmbio$>,
>>>>> to the greatest extent possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What this would entail is: (1) preparing an EPDP initiation request;
>>>>> and (2) migrating the content of the Addendum to an EPDP Charter. *Please
>>>>> consult with your respective SG/Cs and note any objections to this proposed
>>>>> direction by 6 August 2021.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Philippe
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> council mailing list
>>>>> council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210802/ee749fdf/attachment.htm>