<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Candara;
panose-1:2 14 5 2 3 3 3 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'>The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18-en.pdf</a>) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the </span><span style='color:black'>EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN <b><u>and</u></b> the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'>Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Candara",sans-serif;color:black'>Darcy<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>