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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Thank you Peter, and thank you, Pedro for the question.

Peter, based on our public comments and discussions to date, I think NCSG
should be in support of the designation, unless yourself and Emmanuel
advise otherwise.

Warmly,
Tomslin

On Wed, 2 Oct 2024, 10:03 Pedro de Perdigão Lana, <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20241001/76463ab7/attachment.htm>