[NCSG-PC] Fw: [council] Reminder: For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Tue Sep 17 03:43:49 EEST 2019 

Hi,


The draft is fine. I don’t understand in which grounds we will object to
it. Privacy for RDS is already what we are doing with EPDP and would cover
the mentioned cases. I understand that the recommendation is about other
data than RDS/Whois for registries operators to deal with registrants. I
don’t think that is within ICANN remit or scope. Initiating a PDP in this
matter is unlikely to happen because am expected CPH opposition and if for
some reason it happens, that would open a can of worms that we cannot
handle.


Best,


Rafik

Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 00:02, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> Just bumping this thread - would appreciate hearing from more members of
> the Policy Committee. Thanks.
>
> -- Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 18:04, Ayden Férdeline <
> icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> Do we support the initiation then of a new PDP to address this issue?
>
> -- Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 03:12, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>
> No.
> Steph
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 10, 2019, at 09:54, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> RE: This recommendation:
>
> *The GNSO should initiate a new Policy Development Process (PDP) to create
> a consistent privacy baseline across all registries*
>
> Do we support this response?
>
> *The GNSO Council does not intend to initiate a new PDP as recommended
> (see rationale). The Council will seek feedback from the EPDP Team as to
> whether this Recommendation #10 has been or is being addressed in whole or
> in part by the EPDP.*
>
> Offered rationale:
>
> *This recommendation seems to have been overtaken by events such the GDPR
> and the EPDP.*
>
> *The Council is of the view that a PDP “to create a consistent privacy
> baseline across all registries” is not within the “picket fence” or ICANN’s
> mission.*
>
> *All gTLD registry operators are subject to applicable laws and
> regulations as well as ICANN’s consensus policies.*
>
> *gTLD registry operators around the globe process a wide and differing
> range of data (including WHOIS data). While their processing of WHOIS data
> is subject to ICANN contracts and consensus policies, it is up to each
> registry operator to set their own privacy policy that governs their
> processing of such data and ensures compliance with applicable laws and
> regulations.*
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:19, Nathalie Peregrine <
> nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear councilors,
>
>
>
> A reminder that the closing date for input on the initial draft of the
> proposed GNSO Council response to CCT-RT Recommendations is this coming *Friday,
> 13 September 2019*.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Nathalie
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of
> PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> *Reply-To: *PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> *Date: *Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, Flip Petillion <
> fpetillion at petillion.law>
> *Cc: *"carlosraulg at gmail.com" <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO
> Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>
>
>
> Hi Flip - Thank you for taking the time to review the draft.
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> This item was on 22 August Council meeting agenda but was deferred to our
> next monthly meeting on 19 September.
>
>
>
> There are 5 recommendations under consideration and the small team's
> proposed response is as follows:
>
>
>
> #10 (initiating a PDP to create a privacy baseline across all registries)
> - No action at this time
>
> #16 (abuse and Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR)) - Redirect to
> ICANN org
>
> #27 & #28 - Refer to the RPM WG
>
> #29 be - Refer to Sub-pro WG
>
>
>
> It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a moment to review the
> draft (attached again) and, if appropriate, seek input from your
> respective group by 13 September 2019. It would hopefully make our
> discussion during the Council meeting more efficient.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sender:Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
>
> Sent At:2019 Aug. 20 (Tue.) 16:47
>
> Recipient:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>;
> council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <
> council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
>
> Subject:Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council
> Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>
>
>
> Thank you Pam
>
> I have no comments.
> Best regards,
>
> Flip
>
>
>
> Flip Petillion
>
> fpetillion at petillion.law
>
> +32484652653
>
> www.petillion.law
>
>
>
> <image001.png>[petillion.law]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=zHzLY9RS9U0fN-nqSv6KEzaXJtF2lHiOk0Ok7kstWbM&e=>
>
>
>
>   Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Pam Little <
> pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> *Reply to: *Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 20 August 2019 at 02:42
> *To: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, council <
> council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
> *Cc: *"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [council] For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO
> Council Response to CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> The small team would like to suggest some changes to the draft that was
> sent to the Council list late July:
>
>
>
> #16 on DAAR and DNS abuse - In light of the on-going conversations within
> the ICANN community, including a Plenary session on DNS Abuse to be held at
> ICANN66, we've made some suggested edits to the proposed Council response
> and new language to reflect this.
>
>
>
> #28 on cost-benefit analysis of TMCH - Staff recently clarified that the
> RPM WG did not carry out a cost-benefit analysis. While this was one of the
> specific Charter questions, Analysis Group's Final Report indicates that
> their data did not provide quantifiable information to include such
> analysis in its review.  In light of this, we are suggesting a change to
> the proposed Council response:
>
>
>
> *    From*: The GNSO Council will seek feedback/comment from the RPM WG
> whether its Phase 1 work has carried out a cost-benefit analysis consistent
> with the scope described in this Recommendation #28.
>
>
>
> *    To*: The GNSO Council will refer this recommendation to the RPM WG.
>
>
>
> A redline version is attached for your review. Please let us know if you
> have any questions or comments. We look forward to discussing this
> further at the upcoming Council meeting later this week.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Pam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sender:PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
>
> Sent At:2019 Jul. 23 (Tue.) 16:31
>
> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <
> council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Cc:"Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <carlosraulg at gmail.com>; Carlos Raul
> Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <
> michele at blacknight.com>
>
> Subject:For Review: Initial draft of Proposed GNSO Council Response to
> CCT-RT Recommendations Passed Through to GNSO
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> You may recall that the Council discussed this topic during the wrap-up
> session in Marrakesh and the action item was for a small team (Carlos,
> Michele and myself) to take a look at the 5 Recommendations that were
> passed through to GNSO (see the message below from Larisa Gurnick forwarded
> by Mary to Council).
>
>
>
> In addition, a number of Recommendations were passed through to gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and/or Rights Protection Mechanisms
> (RPM) PDP Working Group.  In order to have a better picture of where all
> the Recommendations passed to the GNSO and its PDPs stand, Keith is
> planning to write to the leadership of the Working Groups seeking their
> feedback.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, I attach an initial draft with the small team's proposed
> GNSO Council response to those 5 Recommendations passed through directly to
> the GNSO for your review and consideration. It is likely to be included in
> our August Council meeting agenda so please take some time to consider the
> proposed responses before the meeting. All feedback/comments/suggested
> edits are welcome!
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Pam
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sender:Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>
> Sent At:2019 Jun. 10 (Mon.) 16:43
>
> Recipient:council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Subject:[council] Message regarding CCT-RT recommendations
>
>
>
> Dear Councilors,
>
>
>
> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Larisa Gurnick,
> Vice-President in ICANN’s Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic
> Initiatives (MSSI) department. You may recall that the Competition,
> Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team’s (CCT-RT) final
> recommendations included several that were directed at the GNSO Council.
> This notification should provide you with additional information and
> context for the ICANN Board’s action in respect of those recommendations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dear Members of the GNSO Council,*
>
>
>
> The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1
> March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=>
> - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice
> Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to
> community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that
> the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of
> ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission
> and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”:
>
>    - Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation
>    considerations;
>    - Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status,
>    directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to
>    take further actions;
>    - Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups
>    the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen
>    such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34,
>    35).
>
>
>
> We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs
> -scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=>
> which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are
> addressed to.
>
>
>
> Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendations the
> ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your
> consideration:
>
>
>
>    - *Recommendation 10*.
>    - *Recommendation 16 (in part)* Note: this recommendation was also
>    passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries
>    Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting
>    Organization, Second Security, Stability & Resiliency of DNS Review Team as
>    suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not
>    accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather,
>    passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community
>    groups to consider”.
>    - *Recommendation 27*.
>    - *Recommendation 28*.
>    - *Recommendation 29*. Note: this recommendation was also passed
>    through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, as suggested by the
>    CCT-RT. To inform work relating to recommendations 29 and 30, the ICANN
>    Board suggested that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG could take
>    on, “should they choose to do so, defining the term ‘Global South’ or
>    agreeing on another term to describe underserved or underrepresented
>    regions or stakeholders in coordination with ICANN org”*.*
>
>
>
> We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution:
> “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting,
> nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to
> community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should
> formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is
> within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on
> and the topics that the group will address”*.*
>
> As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to
> be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”.
> Additionally,the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that
> the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups
> decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are
> being passed through […]”*.*
>
> Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for
> transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting
> made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered
> the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of
> reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board
> track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing
> updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) these
> recommendations, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting.
>
>
>
> *Background*
>
> The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT)
> released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_cct-2Dfinal-2D08sep18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=6ICcKJIDUbDCBJXyA3WEljVWYV3q2Y17bqm9MhfIdiE&e=>.
> The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination
> of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level
> domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more
> information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_governance_bylaws-2Den-23article4.6&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=sk_R5n9lFzK-VjJ5MajW0gufBPKP-hHHtxwwm9affK4&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by
> the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2019-2D03-2D01-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=d653AEmkPoU5I6YTgKVksELfQQX3Pv9KlOR-qZCykbo&e=>
> - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the
> Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cct-2Dfinal-2Drecs-2D2018-2D10-2D08-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=rnlQOqTJ0L8ars1j7DT1jgHvcY51YUlkAEoXnRf7NsE&e=>
> ).
>
> The Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the
> scorecard published at
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs
> -scorecard-01mar19-en.pdf [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_resolutions-2Dfinal-2Dcct-2Drecs-2Dscorecard-2D01mar19-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=WHL6AQ0pPSwroWvDA9W4TTMRwnPc7hzcwmmrtiU346o&e=>.
> A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-and-consumer-choice-review
> [icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_board-2Daction-2Don-2Dcompetition-2Dconsumer-2Dtrust-2Dand-2Dconsumer-2Dchoice-2Dreview&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=tPbh87sl7effhOUw5FF9BkBI7x6y32Z1v4ucSL93tCg&e=>
> for more context.
>
>
>
> We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output.
> Please let us know whether you have any questions.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards*.*
>
>
>
> Larisa Gurnick
>
> Vice-President, Multi-stakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Proposed GNSO Council Response to CCT Review Recommendations Passed
> Through to GNSO_revised_15August2019.docx>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=RE22OFJbx8_qCz9fmVxjYD5bSBWSra5Fht1r_CAvFp4&e=
> ) and the website Terms of Service (
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=LN_Zwu0QdQrB0sHeIQckj3e2dEUZj28P_FRzge-5cns&s=ZfTZxU0UZbd1AfNvK-d8E_O17i2IASh4IWsYKLBZmu4&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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190917/2e19f2cf/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list