Proposal in relation to the IGO Work Track

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210731/19d6d424/attachment.htm>