[council] Fwd: Letter from the GNSO Chairs/Co-Chairs on the GNSO Council – ICANN Board meeting to discuss next steps following the Board’s adoption of the temporary specification
haforrestesq at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 04:04:37 UTC 2018
Dear Council colleagues,
Picking up on Pam's query to the list last week, we followed up by letter
on 8 June with the Board in relation to the outstanding questions from our
call. Please find responses sent through by David Olive below. I understand
that #9 is in progress and the intention is to provide it to Council before
our Extraordinary meeting (taking place in a matter of hours, so we won't
have time to review it in depth, but hopefully will have it to hand to
"See" you all later today at the Extraordinary Meeting.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:35 AM
Subject: Letter from the GNSO Chairs/Co-Chairs on the GNSO Council – ICANN
Board meeting to discuss next steps following the Board’s adoption of the
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Gnso-chairs <
gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org>
Cc: Cherine Chalaby <cherine.chalaby at board.icann.org>, Chris Disspain <
chris.disspain at board.icann.org>, Goran Marby <goran.marby at icann.org>, John
Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>,
Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org>, Wendy Profit <
wendy.profit at icann.org>
On behalf of Cherine who is currently traveling, I would like to thank you
for your letter dated 8 June 2018. In the interest of time, Chris Disspain
has asked I respond to the outstanding questions as identified in your
letter so that it is received in time for the upcoming GNSO Council meeting
which has been scheduled for 12 June 2018.
Hereby the responses to the outstanding questions identified:
*(5) The Temporary Specification reasoning for including WHOIS as a
security and stability issue is based on the new ICANN Bylaws; at time of
contract signing, that wasn’t the case. Doesn’t that open a possible avenue
to challenge it altogether? Wouldn’t phasing the EPDP allowing a quick
Consensus Policy made of uncontroversial parts of the Temp Spec increase
the assurances that this wouldn’t hamper ICANN Org’s compliance ability? *
The Board has not had time yet to discuss this question but once it does,
it will provide its feedback to the GNSO Council.
*(8) The Temporary Specification covers a number of additional policies
that go beyond the requirements of the RA and RAA as they relate to
Registration Data Directory Services. How does the Board believe the GNSO
Council should handle these areas of overlap? *
The GNSO Council may want to consider taking the same approach that it
currently uses in policy development processes for considering existing
consensus policies that may be impacted by a proposed new consensus policy.
However, the Board and ICANN Org stand ready to work with the GNSO Council
on these issues as needed and if/when they arise.
*(9) Does ICANN have/will ICANN develop a list of policies and contractual
clauses that are impacted by the temporary specification (beyond what is
currently identified in the Annex)? This would help with scoping the work. *
ICANN Org is preparing a document that will show which areas of the
existing agreements and consensus policies are changed as a result of the
GDPR. It is expected that this document will be shared with the GNSO
Council prior to its meeting.
*(11) How does the Board expect the EPDP to follow and/or to incorporate
ICANN ́s ongoing legal strategy and the decisions of EU country courts? *
Ongoing discussions and pending court cases could have an impact on issues
such as these, but the PDP on the temporary specification is not expected
to deliberate on these issues, unless these are reflected in modifications
that are made by the ICANN Board to the temporary specification.
*(3) What is the Board's expectation with regard to the Council's ongoing
communication with Board/involvement of Board during the scoping process?
(In particular here the notes reflect our discussion on the need for
instant two-way consultation between the Board and the GNSO Council. As
follow-up questions, it would be helpful if the Board could consider its
ability and willingness to appoint a liaison to the EPDP to facilitate this
communication on ongoing basis, and further reflect on the role of the
Board once the PDP is established and working.)*
As suggested during the meeting, if welcomed by the GNSO Council, the Board
would be more than happy to appoint one or two liaisons to the PDP Team to
facilitate communication on an ongoing basis.
I hope that this input will facilitate the upcoming extraordinary Council
meeting. As noted above, I also expect to send you the list of policies and
contractual clauses that are impacted by the temporary specification as
soon as it is available.
David A. Olive
Senior Vice President
Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council