Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track
Juan Manuel Rojas
jumaropi at YAHOO.COM
Thu Aug 5 11:36:33 EEST 2021
Hi all,
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.
We all know that "E" in PDP is almost a joke.
Best Regards,
Juan
El 2/08/21 a las 7:30 a. m., farzaneh badii escribió:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <https://twitter.com/tomsleen>
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/>
>
>
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021 at 01:45, farzaneh badii
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto: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 upwith. 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 <mailto: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
> <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
> <https://twitter.com/tomsleen>
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: *Mary Wong via council* <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <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
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the
> website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos
> <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
>
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210805/4d1c2023/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list