[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] [Ext] Re: Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)

Mon Oct 7 19:03:18 EEST 2019

This is disappointing. Seems the Council Chair is keen to placate the IPC, and likely at our expense. I hope other Councillors will chime in on the Council list disagreeing with the inclusion of WIPO in this letter.

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, 7. October 2019 17:38, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:

> Any thoughts on this folks? It seems there’s pressure on adding WIPO on the list. I probably will not have time for a call for this. But if anyone wants to weigh in, I could potentially send an email with our discussion points.
>
> Thoughts are encouraged and appreciated from all,
>
> E.
> —
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
> Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Re: Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>, julie.hedlund at icann.org <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, elsa.saade at gmail.com <elsa.saade at gmail.com>, council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> All,
>
> I still don’t read any substantiation in support of the allegations. WIPO would not manage any IRPs but would merely stand ready to assist any ICANN request for information on ADR generally and/or potential expert/arbitrator selection processes.
>
> Moreover, you may recall that IP is embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Declaration for the Right of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). I believe it makes sense to have a diverse list of dispute resolution providers and to avoid any type of bias by making a narrow selection before even starting the process.
>
> As to WIPO, it is “the global forum for IP services, policy, information and cooperation [whose] mission is to lead the development of a balanced and effective international IP system that enables innovation and creativity for the benefit of all.”
>
> In my opinion, the list should include ICC, ICDR and WIPO as current and past service providers of ICANN, and leave the option open to consult other institutions.
>
> I await the doodle invite.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Flip
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law
>
> [signature_2376235](http://www.petillion.law/)
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
> From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
> Date: Friday, 4 October 2019 at 21:26
> To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>, "julie.hedlund at icann.org" <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "elsa.saade at gmail.com" <elsa.saade at gmail.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: RE: [council] [Ext] Re: Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>
> Hi Flip,
>
> Thanks for your email. I did not realize that there was a disagreement within the drafting team (you and Elsa) on the point concerning the removal of WIPO, prior to her request to remove it, and the finalization of the comment. I will ask staff to set up a call among the leadership team and the two of you for next week so we can try to resolve this. Please watch for a doodle poll.  We have also notified Samantha Eisner that we may need to retract the current statement and will provide her an update next week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
>
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Flip Petillion
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2019 11:20 AM
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>; Council at gnso.icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] [Ext] Re: Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>
> All:
>
> Thank you for reviewing the proposed text and for the feedback presented. However, I am compelled to formally object to the proposal to remove WIPO as an expert due to a conflict of interest. To my knowledge, this conflict has never been adequately explained or justified; nor has it been discussed (neither with nor without the involvement of the parties concerned).
>
> I had objected to this change before the text was submitted and that objection went unheeded. As we are a working group of 2 and there is an absence of consensus (in accordance with the GNSO Operating Procedures), the appropriate course of action is for Council to discuss and determine the disposition of the question.
>
> So far, I have only read a vague suggestion of ‘removing those [institutions] with conflict of interest given the nature of an IRP.’ This is a rather serious accusation that has no apparent basis (and yet has a material impact)[]. I would therefore urge caution in removing a source that is clearly a world expert in this area. Compounding the matter, I am not aware of anyone following up on this suggestion at this point. No organisation was identified as having a ‘conflict of interest given the nature of an IRP.’ No explanation has been given as to the existence of an actual conflict of interest. Furthermore, it is unclear what was meant by ‘the nature of an IRP’ in this context?
>
> Therefore, I see no justification in removing a single dispute resolution provider like WIPO from the list of institutions that may be consulted with a view to preparing a standing panel. WIPO is an internationally-recognized institution which duly reports to its Member States (its annual Assemblies are in fact occurring this week), has neutrally and impartially operated the UDRP (covering 45,000 cases) for more than twenty (20) years now to the benefit of all ICANN stakeholders, which is trusted by over seventy-five (75) national registries for their policy and case expertise, and which has moreover led the way for ICANN in managing the LRO pre-delegation disputes process. Furthermore, I see no basis for ICANN staff to decide unilaterally to remove a provider from the list in a communication that is supposed to be prepared by the GNSO Council and for which I hold leadership responsibilities.
>
> In order to rectify this situation, I see two options:
>
> - We revert back to the original text and, if necessary, have council debate on the subject; or
>
> - The objection could be withdrawn.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Flip
>
> P.S.: That said, I would suggest an additional change: that the GNSO Council consider removing the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) from the list, albeit for reasons unrelated to the subject above. To my knowledge, ICANN has not previously engaged with the PCA. Asking them to assist now may seem inappropriate unless we can provide compelling reasons to the contrary. As far as I am aware, ICANN has not had any intention to rely on PCA’s services, nor has it such intention for the future. During the last council meeting, I did make this suggestion, but I am not aware of any subsequent actions.
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law
>
> [signature_1434183782](http://www.petillion.law/)
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Date: Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 16:52
> To: Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>, "Council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Re: Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>
> Dear Elsa and Councilors,
>
> As the deadline for comments ended yesterday, 30 September, and Elsa’s suggestion below is the only comment received, please see the attached final version of the response reflecting the minor change suggested by Elsa.  This response will be delivered shortly.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Julie
>
> From: Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:12 AM
> To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> Cc: "Council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Action Item: Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>
> Hi Julie,
>
> Thanks for resending this out! I just wanted to draw attention to the external expertise mentioned in the text, and would suggest removing those with conflict of interest given the nature of an IRP.
>
> Best,
>
> Elsa
>
> —
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:17 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>> Per the action items below, please note in particular this one:
>>
>> Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Councilors to provide input by 30 September 2019. Small team to address Councilors feedback, if applicable, and complete revised draft for sending to ICANN org.
>>
>> With respect to this item please review the attached draft response and provide input, if any, by Monday, 30 September 2019 according to the actions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:22 PM
>> To: "Council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> Cc: "'gnso-secs at icann.org'" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] Action Items: GNSO Council meeting 19 September 2019
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>> Please find the action items, as stated during the meeting, from the GNSO Council call held on 19 September 2019.
>>
>> Please ensure your wiki logins are up to date as all Action Items have been assigned to councilors and/or staff and posted on the Action Item wiki page [here](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_RgZlAg&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=3-hGIGNPG_MVccHXahT9lk8qFDbuDuo_wwbRzKZZQGg&s=do3fZzjIln0Jwcx8qKogeUnOo6PFhu4TNs9Q0S7YzIs&e=). If you are logged into the wiki when you go to that page, your name will be highlighted alongside the action item assigned to you. Please refer to this page for the recent status updates on the Action items.
>>
>> Please note that actions for all councilors are highlighted below.
>>
>> ACTION ITEMS FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 19 SEP 2019
>>
>> Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action Items List
>>
>> Action Items:
>>
>> - None
>>
>> Item 3: Consent Agenda
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - None
>>
>> Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Board referrals of CCT-RT recommendations to GNSO Council and GNSO PDP WGs
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Councilors to review and send comments, if applicable, by 26 September 2019.
>>
>> - Council leadership to subsequently draft cover letter and send response to the ICANN Board, shortly thereafter.
>>
>> Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Discussion of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Policy Status Report and Council next steps
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Council to convene a small focused drafting team (e.g., like the IDN Scoping Team) to review several items, including at least the review of the ICANN Policy Status Report, considering the possibility of policy development mechanisms, and the form of authorization (FOA) issues.
>>
>> - ICANN Staff to circulate call for volunteers to form small drafting team.
>>
>> Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Draft Amendments to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Charter to Integrate Recommendation 5 From IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Final Report
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Small team to address Councilors’ feedback (e.g., language about new recommendations superseding recommendations 1-4, ensuring technical expertise is available, and team composition) and deliver a revised draft by 27 September for Council review. After Council approval, send to the GAC/IGOs for their review.
>>
>> Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – ICANN Org’s Request for Clarification on Data Accuracy and Phase-2 of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Councilors to provide input by 7 October 2019. Small team to address Councilors’ feedback and complete revised draft for Council review and approval for sending to ICANN org.
>>
>> Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -  EPDP P1 Recommendation 27: ICANN Org’s Assessment of Impact From GDPR on Existing Policies / Procedures
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - None
>>
>> Item 9 - PDP 3.0 Small Group Update/Discussion
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - PDP 3.0 team to consider how input from outside the GNSO can be solicited.
>>
>> Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to the Verisign Request to Defer Enforcement of the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Council leadership to send letter to ICANN Board.
>>
>> Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Draft Response to Questions on the Independent Review Process Oversight Team (IRP-IOT)
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Councilors to provide input by 30 September 2019. Small team to address Councilors feedback, if applicable, and complete revised draft for sending to ICANN org.
>>
>> Item 12: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
>>
>> 12.1 - [Draft GNSO Council letter [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_gnso-2Dcouncil-2Dto-2Dicann-2Dboard-2D13sep19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=wzIcuBNsTyK_-aJaQlHE3GJd912842EagkY1lxr5Dys&s=i9lKVPogIFc9wMxzTAhK0c5W76B9uenIwV2XvbM6IUM&e=) to the ICANN Board regarding potential dependencies between the Name Collisions Analysis Project (NCAP) and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Council leadership to send letter to ICANN Board.
>>
>> 12.2 - Approval of the 2019 slate of Members and Liaisons on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - possible email vote
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - None
>>
>> NEW: 12.3 - Invitation to Provide Feedback on the ICANN Board’s Proposed Public Interest Framework
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Council to convene a small drafting team to formulate a response to the public comment period.
>>
>> - ICANN Staff to circulate call for volunteers to form small drafting team.
>>
>> Andrea Glandon
>>
>> GNSO SO/AC Support
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Email:  andrea.glandon at icann.org
>>
>> Skype ID:  acglandon76
>>
>> Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: [https://learn.icann.org/ [learn.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=wzIcuBNsTyK_-aJaQlHE3GJd912842EagkY1lxr5Dys&s=kf1KBrkjy3HBF5KYAke_olPEzshzODyedOSeT19RtlA&e=)
>>
>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: [https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=)
>>
>> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the [GNSO Master Calendar [gnso.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=-L6chFfv0OperrXHHpTF722WnH3FZIutn4cS16IvpOg&e=)
>>
>> See All SO and AC events on the [ICANN Global Calendar [features.icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__features.icann.org_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=JIuCi8FdVCOcC7bOAMWYU065PkC8Q_asOphTPPe8jeQ&e=)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=VuQBkBlMG1KsrVNDg59TVqHmNSZz9P8aatqCz72nklM&s=x5OUMJhndbHWh9-PqG55E8KK5C3Ehl7GFl6SXpo5fW4&e=)) and the website Terms of Service ([https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=VuQBkBlMG1KsrVNDg59TVqHmNSZz9P8aatqCz72nklM&s=h1BBbfjoieUnV0ND7UdLDaax9prDv8WYoFIaoJYR-1Q&e=)). 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.
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
>
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>
> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20191007/183fb075/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7394 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20191007/183fb075/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7393 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20191007/183fb075/attachment-0001.png>