Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track

Sun Aug 8 08:33:37 EEST 2021

Hi Milton,
Following up on your second email. This is the addendum to the RPM charter
which the GNSO (including our stakeholder group) voted for:
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/rpms-charter-addendum-07jan20-en.pdf
The number of representatives and composition is there. If there will be a
conversion to EPDP the charter will adhere to the addendum. It’s just a
conversion of the vehicle.
If there are any concerns about composition, etc my question is why did we
get no objections to voting for the addendum?
Just for the sake of consistency.
Warm regards,
Tatiana

On Sat 7. Aug 2021 at 23:37, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Could the WT group wrap up with a set of recommendations to be delivered
> to the RPM working group?  Treat it not like a policy maker or PDP but as
> an expert working group?
>
>
>
> Perhaps the best justification for what is proposed is that an EPDP would
> be more focused and less unruly than the open WG-style PDP that has caused
> RPM to produce so little results. But if they do create a EPDP, please,
> please, let it be restricted to GNSO constituencies so that we end the
> precedent created by the Whois EPDP of specially chartered, one-off
> groupings that are designed to stack the deck for a particular interest
> group
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Tatiana
> Tropina
>
>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 2, 2021 12:57 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track
>
>
>
> 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/20210808/1ee5dadc/attachment.htm>