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

Thu Jul 25 19:54:59 EEST 2019

I am going to submit this response now, as we have received affirmations of support from a majority of Councilors (and Rafik was involved in drafting the original letter).

Thanks, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, 25 July 2019 12:57, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20190725/77fe795c/attachment.htm>