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

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Thank you Tomslin.

My recommendation is for us to support the final outcome.

Kind regards
Peter

On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:34 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>> ___________________________________________
>>>
>>

-- 
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/20241001/98fa6364/attachment.htm>