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

Thu Jul 25 18:57:10 EEST 2019

Thanks for drafting this, Ayden and Amr.
My support, too.
Cheers,
Tanya

On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 17:38, Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190725/866e4e0a/attachment.htm>