[NCSG-PC] quick response requested Fw: Fwd: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations

Thu Jul 25 16:37:29 EEST 2019

Hi all,

Please see below a comment that Amr has raised on the NCSG-Discuss list. I would like to propose that we send the below comment to the Council list on behalf of the NCSG.

With apologies to Amr for the plagiarism, I have basically copied and pasted his message, making a few small edits, as I think it makes the case well. Are there any requested edits or objections to this being sent?

Ayden Férdeline

The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group supports the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We too object to modifying Recommendation 12.

Recommendation 12 received sufficient support within the EPDP team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the small minority of groups not supporting it. We would object to any attempt to re-open discussions on the substance of a recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, regardless of who raised it, because this is not procedurally correct.

Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are meant to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, the recommendations were voted on by the GNSO Council, and they have been sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 08:23, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m forwarding this thread from the GNSO Council mailing list, because I’m concerned with the Business Constituency’s attempt at amending a recommendation coming out of phase 1 of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
>
> The discussion below concerns purpose 2 within recommendation 1 as well as recommendation 12 in the phase 1 [Final Report](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf) (concerning the “registrant organization” field), which were not adopted by the ICANN Board pending concerns they have raised. These were addressed during the Board’s meeting with the GNSO Council at ICANN65, and the Council is now drafting a more formal response in the form of correspondence (draft attached to this email).
>
> My concern is mainly with the recommendation 12 discussion. This recommendation received enough support within the EPDP Team to be included in the Final Report, however, the Business Constituency was among the groups not supporting it. They are now attempting to re-open discussions on the substance of the recommendation in discussions taking place between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, which is not procedurally correct. Discussions on substantive policy recommendations are menat to take place at the Working Group level (the bottom of the bottom-up policy development process). These discussions have already taken place, the report and recommendations were finalized, voted on by the GNSO Council and sent to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
>
> So far, the Contracted Parties have pushed back against the Business Constituency’s attempt to re-litigate recommendation 12. I hope that our own representatives on the GNSO Council join in, and do the same.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>> Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>> Date: July 24, 2019 at 9:44:19 PM GMT+2
>> To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Reply-To: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
>>
>> Thanks you, Keith.
>>
>> The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option.  The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval.  Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12.
>>
>> Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws.  In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP.  In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work.  That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2.  Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks.  It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work.  So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors.  At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work.
>>
>> Best,
>> Darcy
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marie,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday’s Council call.
>>>
>>> On your second point below, related to the Board’s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council’s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested.
>>>
>>> I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM
>>> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>>>
>>> Hi Keith,
>>>
>>> Thanks for sharing the draft. I’m afraid I haven’t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns.
>>>
>>> On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis’ letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it’s not on the Team’s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt.
>>>
>>> As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don’t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to the discussion!
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Marie
>>>
>>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM
>>> To: council at gnso.icann.org
>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
>>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board.
>>>
>>> As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution.
>>>
>>> Please review before our Council meeting.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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-pc/attachments/20190725/134b903b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Update on EPDP Phase 1 consultation process - 17 July 2019.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19501 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190725/134b903b/attachment.docx>