Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track

Mon Aug 2 11:56:46 EEST 2021

Stephanie, is it possible to elaborate on your argument about the workload
a bit more? The group already exists and it's doing its work, we have two
representatives there, so I would rather say it's the opposite to me unless
they would indicate that things are not going well there: people already
put the amount of volunteer hours into the WT, why do we want to leave them
in limbo? Again, am saying it procedurally as I am not sure what is going
on there content-wise. If it was starting an EPDP from scratch, I would
have argued the same, but the group is already there and working, so what
are our reasons exactly?
Warm regards,
Tatiana

On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 14:57, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:

> This is not my area of focus, so i leave others to comment on the
> substance, i have quite enough work with the other EPDP.  My complaint is
> the usual…..workload.  Absent a compelling reason, and i heard none at
> Council, we dont need another wretched EPDP starting.  Limbo is a great
> place for this lot, procedurally, for a wee while.
> Stephanie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 2, 2021, at 08:31, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL:*
> 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/20210802/8c5fa681/attachment.htm>