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

Thu Jul 25 18:38:23 EEST 2019

My support to this submission!

2019-07-25 16:45 UTC+02:00, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
> Thanks Amr, that is a good point. I have now made a small edit to note our
> support for the letter.
>
> -- Ayden
>
> The Noncommercial Stakeholders Group has reviewed the draft Council letter
> to the ICANN Board (circulated on 17 July 2019), and we support sending the
> letter in its present form.
>
> We also support the comments raised by the Registrar Stakeholder Group. We
> too object to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option.
>
> 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 10:47, 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.

-- 
------------------------
**Arsène Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>*,
Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC)
GPG: 523644A0

2015 Mandela Washington Fellow
<
http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>

(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm> Member. UN IGF MAG
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/pi2247.doc.htm> Member