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

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

Looks good to me. Nothing to comment but have my support.

Martin Silva

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 10:47 AM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:

> Hi Ayden and all,
>
> Thanks for reacting to this so quickly. For my part, no objection to any
> plagiarism taking place. 😉
>
> It might also be worthwhile to point out that the NCSG supports the
> current form of the draft Council letter/response to the ICANN Board.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from Mobile
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 3:37 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20190725/0bd365d1/attachment.htm>