[council] FW: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval

Tue Feb 12 17:41:59 UTC 2019

Anything that doesn't adhere to the consensus policy thresholds, both in voting and in process, wouldn't be binding on contracted parties.

So if the idea is to come out with best practices that may or may not be followed by CPs and wouldn't be enforceable by Compliance, then it makes sense. Otherwise...

Rubens

> Em 12 de fev de 2019, à(s) 15:36:000, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> escreveu:
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I’ve been asked to send the below message to you from Margie, on behalf of the BC’s EPDP participants. I’m copying them here for ease.
> 
> We’d appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Marie
> 
> 
> Hi –
> 
> Thank you for sharing this note.   I am genuinely confused about the directions given to the GNSO Council since this report – although it is misnamed a “Final Report” is really only an “Phase 1 Interim Report” since the PDP has not concluded, and the charter questions have not been answered.  As a result, is seems that the voting thresholds to create a consensus policy and the vote required under the Bylaws do not yet apply until the Phase 2 work is complete.
> 
> I understand the desire to call this a Final Report, but  there is a significant amount of work that has not been done yet, as outlined in the draft report being circulated, with key areas missing, such as:
> 
> …the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. (p.3, Mission and Scope, emphasis added)
> 
> This passage sets forth the minimum requirements necessary for successful completion of the EPDP.  However, one set of questions (see p.7 of the charter) -- dealing with access to non-public registration data -- is entirely unaddressed by the EPDP team.  Further, according to the charter:
> 
> System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data
> Work on this topic shall begin once the gating questions above have been answered and finalized in preparation for the Temporary Specification initial report. (p.7, emphasis added)
> 
> The initial Phase 1 report was published in November 2018, with the “gating questions” (Parts 2(b), 2(c) and 2(f)) sufficiently addressed (see EPDP initial report <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_epdp-2Dgtld-2Dregistration-2Ddata-2Dspecs-2Dinitial-2D21nov18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=G9xxOW1qkKuaPQ6d3WXhn61IYOR9wT9hMeiSXE_W6L0&e=>).  Per the charter, work on an access model should have begun late last year.  Instead this work has been deferred to Phase 2 of the team’s work.  What is unclear is when the EPDP team will take up its remaining responsibilities under the charter and produce an actual “final” report (not merely a report on the conclusion of Phase 1), inclusive of Phases 1 and 2.
> 
> Additionally, Section 2(j) of the charter addresses “Reasonable Access.”  In what is labeled the draft final report <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport-3Fpreview-3D_102145109_104236114_EPDP-2520Team-2520Draft-2520Final-2520Report-2520-2D-2520CLEAN-2520-2D-2520version-25208-2520February-25202019.docx&d=DwMGaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=XJxBprwNEXjSszkwuEBJGlqcEFtfl-khXMFCNZGnmrs&s=Do1uJaFk34KL6cF91PTuJz1b74Nvra5w1sYZzxu_6rU&e=>, the charter’s section 2(j) questions are only partially answered, and included is a recommendation that the rest of the details be worked out in the implementation phase.  Again, the EPDP team’s work is not yet finished, and it is premature to consider the current “consensus calls” instructive since this is an incomplete report, and true consensus can only truly be determined when the entire package (Phase 1 and Phase 2) of recommendations is developed.
> 
> As a result, the report should be renamed, and the Council’s instructions should be updated accordingly.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Margie
> 
> 
> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:43 AM
> To: "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] FYI Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
> 
> hi all,
> 
> Please find below the email sent to GNSO council to submit the motion for council consideration to approve the final report.
> 
> You can find the latest version of the report posted in word and redline version on the wiki space https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_EOTSFGRD_g.-2BDraft-2BFinal-2BReport&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=_4XWSt8rUHZPiRG6CoP4Fnk_CCk4p550lffeMi3E1z8&m=2bKdeEUYzoij8WxciKZVb5VVqVK3V3yRZ0UzXrF7ptk&s=O_3E1UObrwyVNxfNzSbSJ486aS60ILTVbUwdZSmPYPM&e=>.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> Date: mar. 12 févr. 2019 à 08:10
> Subject: Motion For EPDP Final Report Approval
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am glad to submit today the motion for the approval of EPDP Final Report Please find attached the motion and the draft final report. That version of the report is being currently reviewed by EPDP team members during this week - "quiet time". You will find below a cover letter from the EPDP leadership team giving more details in that regard.
> 
> The motion may need to be amended in due time to be in line with the level of support for the recommendations in the Final Report.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik Dammak
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Councillors:
> 
> We are pleased to present this Draft Final EPDP Report Final Report of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
> 
> The purpose in sending this draft Final Report is so that you can become acquainted with its layout and contents in advance of the release of the Final Report, expected on 20 February. It is hoped that this early release will facilitate your review of the final document.
> 
> The EPDP Team is grateful to have two additional weeks for its deliberations.We are using the first week as a sort of “quiet period” to review the draft Final Report and have scheduled meetings for next week to reach conclusions on open issues. So we expect so substantive and non-substantive amendments to the report.
> 
> With regard to the level of consensus, the report indicates those items where:
> ·  The Chair has indicated a consensus level and the EPDP Team has had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation
> ·  The Chair has indicated a level of Consensus and the EPDP Team has not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on that designation
> ·  The Chair has not made a designation yet because the issue is still open for some discussion.
> 
> In many (nearly all) of the open recommendations, we are very close to final language but we have attempted to be conservative in the consensus designation and so have left some of these recommendations with no designation as of yet. The language you are reading in this report is close to final.
> 
> Sections that still remain open are designated with brackets. The next steps for those sections are highlighted in yellow.
> 
> We will also conduct a final Consensus call on the entire document when the report is final to identify any issues raised by the interplay between the Recommendations.
> 
> Finally, and there will be more about this when the final report is delivered, this work product represents a significant sacrifice in time and effort by the working group members and, more significantly, a willingness by them to collaborate, cooperate, and compromise for our common goals.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> EPDP Leadership Team
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190212/148fc70c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190212/148fc70c/signature-0001.asc>