<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Thanks Jonathan. I
have admit, I am a little confused re: the purpose of the
advice. Probably a result of being reasonably new to some of
these ICANN processes. Not sure what we expect to achieve. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/28/2019 12:13 PM, Jonathan Zuck
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR08MB428809D06101726205ED0F57B6590@SN6PR08MB4288.namprd08.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
I think those are good process points but unless I
misunderstood, the purpose of the advice is to put the
community on notice for Phase II, not reopen phase I<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Jonathan<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Jonathan Zuck<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Executive Director<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Innovators Network Foundation<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
<a href="http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.Innovatorsnetwork.org</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
GTLD-WG <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org"><gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org></a> on
behalf of Bastiaan Goslings
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net"><bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 28, 2019 8:58:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> CPWG<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Drafting an advice to the
ICANN board: EPDP final report phase 1</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi all,<br>
<br>
With regard to <a
href="https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443</a><br>
<br>
I expressed earlier that I do not think that contracted
parties should be mandated to differentiate between
registrants on a geographic basis. See rec#16 of the final
phase 1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG call yesterday, but
considering the time constraint I felt it was not the place
to touch on the specific issue of (non) geographical
distinction again as it is not clear to me yet whether the
penholders indeed want to raise this a concern in the
advice.<br>
<br>
(Btw Even if geographical distinction is mandated, according
to rec#10 contracted can still choose to redact data even if
the GDPR is not applicable. But that is beside the point
here)<br>
<br>
Besides me potentially disagreeing with the (part of the)
content of a (proposed) advice, I am slightly concerned with
regard to the process and how it might be perceived by
others. Even when only we stress the importance of a Unified
Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear distinction to
be made by contracted parties between natural and legal
persons, both of which I can agree with, these topics are
explicitly to be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no
brainer and meant to be one of the main end-products of
phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the phase 1 end-report is very clear
on the natural vs legal distinction that needs to be
resolved.<br>
<br>
Also:<br>
<br>
- We had plenty of opportunities to raise our concerns in
the EPDP deliberations themselves, I’m sure Hadia and Alan
did a great job;<br>
- Our concerns are included in our statement in the phase 1
final report that the board will take note of;<br>
- We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC
statement<br>
<br>
And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex<br>
<br>
'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other groups
support the Final Report.’<br>
<br>
I am sure all groups had to make compromises to reach
consensus and support the report. I do not think it would
look good if we would be perceived, with an advice to the
board, as attempting to open up the report and cherry pick
recommendations we like and ask the board not to follow up
on those we disagree with.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
Bastiaan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*** Please note that this communication is confidential,
legally privileged, and subject to a disclaimer:
<a href="https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer</a>
***<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org">CPWG@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>