[Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Consensus Call for EPDP-IDNs Phase 2 Final Outputs: 20-30 September 2024

Tue Oct 1 19:03:22 EEST 2024

 That is indeed very helpful, Peter, and it solved my doubts! Thank you so
much for the effort in reaching out to ask for more details on it (and
sorry for missing the opportunity to take a deeper look at it during the PC
period, and flagging it just now)

Cordially,

*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
<https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.

Em ter., 1 de out. de 2024 às 17:42, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <
compsoftnet at gmail.com> escreveu:

> Thank you Pedro for looking at the Final IDN EPDP output.
>
> No, however, we need to get our consensus agreement in today as the
> leadership team need to circulate the report to the GNSO council.
>
> I got a feedback for you from the EPDP team. See below response from
> Saewon
>
> *First, I would like to mention that we are currently in the Consensus
> Call stage, following the Public Comment review process for the Phase 2
> Initial Report. This means that the text for IG12 was already out for
> Public Comment, which received support from the NCSG, and has remained
> unchanged. As you are also aware, the Transfer Policy Review PDP WG has
> also shown no concern or negative impact from this language.*
>
>
>
> *Second, and to answer the main concern raised, recommendations 10-11 have
> a different scope to IG12. While Recs 10-11 specifically relates to the
> transfers process, and thus refer to the exempted variant domain names,
> IG12 is about the disputed domain name where the URS complainant should
> have the responsibility to decide whether to include any or all of the
> other allocated variant domain name(s) of a disputed domain name in a URS
> complaint. To ensure the safeguards in practice, recommendation 13 requires
> ICANN org to conduct outreach to mark owners to enhance their understanding
> of gTLD variant labels and variant domain names, in particular, their
> potential impact on the dispute resolution, which will help with those
> contentious situations.*
>
>
>
> *Lastly, kindly note that IG12 is an implementation guidance, not a policy
> recommendation. This means that the EPDP Team strongly recommends the
> stated action but also recognizes that there may exist valid reasons to not
> take the recommended action exactly as described.*
>
>
>
> *I hope this answers the concern raised but if further action needs to be
> taken, may I suggest that this is raised again during the next Public
> Comment process which will be organized by the ICANN Board?*
>
>
> Let me know if this helpful.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:13 PM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter!
>>
>> Was the Call for Consensus extended? We can still comment on it or ask
>> for clarifications?
>>
>> There is an Implementation Guidance there that caught my attention:
>>
>> *D7a Final Recommendations:*
>> *Implementation Guidance 12: *A Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)
>> complainant is responsible for deciding whether to include allocated
>> variant domain names, if any, of a disputed domain name as part of their
>> URS complaint.
>>
>> *Is there a reason why the excerpt "The exempted variant domain names
>> pursuant to Final Recommendation 3 are excluded from this requirement",
>> which appears in other similar recommendations, was not included, even if
>> adapted to the context, here?* I'm questioning because sometimes we see
>> a push (based on arguments such as the urgent rite of the procedure not
>> allowing for stronger safeguards) to make the URS "extra-protective"
>> towards IP rights holders, while also trying to go beyond the very strict
>> scope of this system.
>>
>> I would like to understand better if this is one of those cases or if the
>> exception of the FC3-exempt-variant-domain-names is already implied.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
>> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC BR <https://isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
>> <https://www.ncuc.org> & NCSG
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN),
>> YouthLACIGF <https://youthlacigf.lat/>, IODA <https://ioda.org.br/> and CC
>> Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em ter., 1 de out. de 2024 às 13:23, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com>
>> escreveu:
>>
>>> I am in agreement
>>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024, 4:09 pm Akinremi Peter Taiwo, <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> I am referring to the email below.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, Emmanuel and I have been the representatives on the IDN
>>>> EPDP and have kept members informed about the EPDP outcomes. Based on
>>>> member feedback from the mailing list and monthly policy calls, we would
>>>> like to provide our agreement to the EPDP Leadership regarding the
>>>> EPDP-IDNs Phase 2 Final Outputs.
>>>>
>>>> If there are any concerns, please let us know today so we can respond
>>>> with our agreement to the EPDP call for consensus.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the late notice.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear EPDP Team Members,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of the leadership team, and as discussed during the Team
>>>> meeting #118
>>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=371327501>
>>>> on Thursday, 12 September 2024, this message is to notify you the opening
>>>> of the Consensus Call process on the EPDP-IDNs Phase 2 Final Outputs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The leadership team has proposed a consensus designation for every
>>>> final Output that the EPDP Team has finalized by 20 September 2024. These
>>>> consensus designations are contained in the attached pdf document titled, *“[P2
>>>> Final Report] Leadership Proposed Consensus Designation.”*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This Consensus Call process opens today, Friday, 20 September, 2024 at
>>>> 22:30 UTC, for a 10-day period, closing on Monday, 30 September, 2024 at
>>>> 22:30 UTC. In accordance with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-15mar23-en.pdf>,
>>>> *the EPDP Team Members are required to indicate via reply to this
>>>> message whether they accept, or do not accept, the leadership team’s
>>>> proposed consensus designations.* If no objection is raised by any
>>>> Member, the consensus designation is considered accepted by that EPDP Team
>>>> Member. If you do not respond before Monday, 30 September, 2024 at 22:30
>>>> UTC, the leadership team will take this as acceptance of the consensus
>>>> designations. If any objection is raised for any specific final Output(s),
>>>> the leadership team is expected to reevaluate the consensus designation of
>>>> such Output(s) and publish an updated designation to be reviewed by the
>>>> EPDP Team.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the event there is no disagreement by the EPDP Team with the
>>>> proposed consensus designations, your Support Staff will incorporate the
>>>> Final Outputs into the Phase 2 Final Report.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As set out in the EPDP Team Charter
>>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/2.+Charter?preview=/166265992/167543874/CharterGNSOIDNsEPDPWorkingGroup20May21.pdf>,
>>>> *only Members appointed by their representative groups are expected to
>>>> participate in the Consensus Call process.* *Participants and
>>>> observers will not be able to participate. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For reference, please also see the attached document titled * “[P2
>>>> Final] FINAL OUTPUTS (ONLY)”* that contains the nineteen (19) Outputs
>>>> to be included in the Phase 2 Final Report.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For more information about the Consensus Call, you may review the GNSO
>>>> Working Group Guidelines
>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-15mar23-en.pdf>
>>>> or the EPDP Team Charter
>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/idns-epdp-charter-10may21-en.pdf>
>>>> (Section VI: Decision Making Methodologies) *(both documents also
>>>> linked above)*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> EPDP-IDNs Support Staff on behalf of the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-epdp-idn-team mailing list -- gnso-epdp-idn-team at icann.org
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-epdp-idn-team-leave at icann.org
>>>> %(web_page_url)slistinfo/%(_internal_name)s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>> *Taiwo Peter Akinremi*
>>>> ------ ------ -------  ------ ------ -------  ------ ------ ------- ------
>>>> ------ -------  ------ ------
>>>> *Policy Advisory | Data Governance and Privacy Consultant | Information
>>>> Security & Cybersecurity | Certified Salesforce Administrator*
>>>> *Phone*; +2348117714345, +2347063830177 *Skype*: akinremi.taiwo
>>>> *Email:* compsoftnet at gmail.com, peterexecute at gmail.com
>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Best regards
>
> *Taiwo Peter Akinremi*
> ------ ------ -------  ------ ------ -------  ------ ------ ------- ------
> ------ -------  ------ ------
> *Policy Advisory | Data Governance and Privacy Consultant | Information
> Security & Cybersecurity | Certified Salesforce Administrator*
> *Phone*; +2348117714345, +2347063830177 *Skype*: akinremi.taiwo
> *Email:* compsoftnet at gmail.com, peterexecute at gmail.com
> ___________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20241001/24ed4248/attachment.htm>