[council] Vote deferral requested

Thu Feb 21 11:59:10 UTC 2019

Hi Flip,

We can discuss during today’s call, but the EPDP WG reached sufficient consensus on Recommendation 1 (Purpose 2) as defined in the EPDP operating procedures. It did not have full support, but consensus was deemed reached.

Thanks,

Keith

From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:50 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; arsenebaguma at gmail.com; michele at blacknight.com
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

Keith,

I was in the middle of preparing a comment which I have pasted below. It precisely relates to the non-consensus Recommendations that are in the EPDP Report and also in the draft Motion:

I want to point out an inaccuracy in the motion, probably because of a mistake in the EPDP report.

Paragraph 10 of the preliminary points of the Motion currently reads:

10.  The EPDP Team has reached full consensus / consensus on the recommendations contained in the Final Report, apart from two recommendations (#2 and #16);

I have read the final EPDP report again.

If I understand correctly – and please correct me if I am wrong – there is an issue with regard to recommendation #1 (purpose #2).

Therefore, in my opinion, Paragraph 10 of the Motion should read:

10.  The EPDP Team has reached full consensus / consensus on the recommendations contained in the Final Report, apart from two recommendations (#1, #2 and #16);

Similarly, the final EPDP report should note “(Divergence)” with regard to Recommendation #1 (purpose #2).

Best,

Flip

Flip Petillion

fpetillion at petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion at petillion.law>

+32484652653

www.petillion.law<http://www.petillion.law>

<http://www.petillion.law/>

  Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Date: Thursday, 21 February 2019 at 12:36
To: "arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>" <arsenebaguma at gmail.com<mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>>, "michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>" <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

Thanks all for this ongoing discussion.

To be clear:

*       The EPDP WG’s Phase One Final Report is complete and has been delivered to us for consideration and a vote.
*       The EPDP WG is now done with its Phase One work.
*       There is no opportunity for further work or amendment to this report at Council.
*       We will need to reach a supermajority level of Council support to approve.
*       We can vote today (21 Feb) or on 4 March, but not any later.
*       If we don’t reach a supermajority, voting on *procedural* grounds, the Final Report would be sent back to the EPDP WG for further work to fix the process points.
*       If the report is sent back to the EPDP WG, the May 25 deadline to replace the Temp Spec would be missed and the Phase 2 work will be delayed.
*       If there are no procedural grounds on which to defer today’s motion, we should vote today, as the substance of the Final Report will not change between now and March 4.
*       If there are procedural concerns, we will discuss during today’s meeting.
*       The two questions we have this morning are:

   *    (1) do we need to defer the vote to 4 March, and on what grounds?
   *    (2) do we need to separate out the two recommendations that did not secure consensus in the EPDP WG for separate votes?

   I look forward to talking with you all shortly.

   Thanks,

   Keith

   From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Arsène Tungali
   Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:19 AM
   To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
   Cc: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
   Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

   I am really hoping we will be able to vote on this today to save time and not delaying Phase 2 of this important process!

   Sent from my iPhone

   On 21 Feb 2019, at 12:52, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:

   Marie

   What discussions?

   The ePDP is not having any more meetings. The marathon meeting yesterday was the last one and the final report was sent to Council yesterday.

   Any issues that were not resolved by the end of the meeting and updated version of the report are not going to be resolved.

   So I honestly do not understand this position.

   Regards

   Michele

   --

   Mr Michele Neylon

   Blacknight Solutions

   Hosting, Colocation & Domains

   https://www.blacknight.com/

   http://blacknight.blog/

   Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

   Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

   Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

   Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

   -------------------------------

   Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

   Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

   From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
   Date: Thursday 21 February 2019 at 10:33
   To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
   Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
   Subject: Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

   Dear all,

   Many thanks for the responses. We very much appreciate the extraordinary engagement of all who have worked so tirelessly to bring us to this point.

   As Keith clearly (and rightly) stresses below, it is not for Council to re-litigate the work of that Team. This is why we believe that the current discussions must be allowed to continue, and the few extra days between now and 4th March could be critical. We refer you to the minority statement that the BC has co-issued with the IPC, which shows how very far we have come and why we are hopeful that allowing these intense (and good faith) discussions to continue would be of long-term benefit to the entire community.

   Best

   Scott & Marie

   From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
   Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:43 AM
   To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>
   Cc: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
   Subject: Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

   The NCSG is ready to vote on this motion tomorrow, and we are not requesting a vote deferral. We have been working diligently and sincerely in the EPDP team towards achieving a consensus outcome and, with the publication of the phase one final report today, we are ready to cast our votes on the motion that has been proposed.

   As the NCSG has stated in our 18 February 2019 comments to the EPDP team, there are areas where we have withheld our objections out of our genuine desire to reach a new consensus policy. Personally, I would like to see others do the same.

   Best wishes,

   Ayden Férdeline

   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

   On Thursday, February 21, 2019 3:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:

      Marie,

      Would BC, and possibly other C's or SGs that intend to request a deferral,  consider requesting a deferral only on the votes of the recommendations with EPDP divergence ? For completeness, this would mean voting on Purposes 1-7, Recommendations 3-15 and 17-29, but not on recommendations 2 and 16. Or any slicing of the report that includes those two recommendations.

      Note that I'm not making such request or suggesting others to do so, because I would prefer no deferral at all, but I believe this would allow some progress in this meeting and save valuable time to discuss the issues that seems to be polarizing within the community.

      Also, this would need a few amendments to the motion, but it's soon even to suggest them. Just floating the idea to see if it helps.

      Rubens

         On 20 Feb 2019, at 18:37, Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:

         Hi Marie,

         Thanks for your email. Your request for a deferral is noted, and we can discuss further during tomorrow’s meeting.

         As a reminder to all Councilors, as the manager of the GNSO policy development process, our role is to vote on whether the process and procedures and charter were followed by the EPDP WG. It is not an opportunity to re-litigate discussions and decisions made by the EPDP WG itself. Any requests for deferral and voting should be considered in this important context.

         Also, *if* there is a deferral to 4 March, there will be no further opportunity to defer Council’s vote on the motion; a vote will be required.

         Regards,

         Keith

         From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo

         Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 9:46 AM

         To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

         Cc: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

         Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

         Given that the situation is very fluid, with substantive issues still being considered, it would give us time to understand the new policy before we vote.

         M

         From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>

         Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:34 PM

         To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>

         Cc: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

         Subject: Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

         So if the report is being finalised today what benefit is there in deferring the vote?

         --

         Mr Michele Neylon

         Blacknight Solutions

         Hosting, Colocation & Domains

         https://www.blacknight.com/

         https://blacknight.blog/

         Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

         Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

         Personal blog: https://michele.blog/

         Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/

         -------------------------------

         Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

         Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

         From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
         Date: Wednesday 20 February 2019 at 13:26
         To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
         Cc: "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
         Subject: Re: [council] Vote deferral requested

         Hi Marie,

         I want to highlight that the EPDP Team planned on submitting the Final Report today and we are having our final call in few minutes.

         In theory we can have a couple of additional days until the document deadline (22 Feb) for a extraordinary meeting in 4th March but the Council should have the report by tomorrow's meeting to be able to discuss and plan for its vote accordingly even if it takes place on 4 March.

         Best,

         Rafik

         Le mer. 20 févr. 2019 à 22:09, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>> a écrit :

            Dear Keith,

            On behalf of the BC, we would like to request that the Council vote on the Phase 1 EPDP Report be postponed until Monday 4th March so as to permit the continuation of the very practical ongoing discussion within the EPDP Team on the unresolved policy recommendations.

            Thanks in advance,

            Scott & Marie

Marie Pattullo

Senior Trade Marks and Brand Protection Manager

<image001.png>

European Brands Association

Avenue des Gaulois 9 · 1040 Brussels<https://www.google.com/maps?q=9+avenue+des+Gaulois+%0D%0AB-1040++Brussels&entry=gmail&source=g> · Belgium

T: +32 2 736 03 05

M: +32 496 610 395

E: marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>

W: www.aim.be<http://www.aim.be/>

EU Transparency Register: 1074382679-01<http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=1074382679-01>

<image002.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association/> <image003.png><https://twitter.com/AIMbrands>

            _______________________________________________
            council mailing list
            council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
            https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

         _______________________________________________

         council mailing list

         council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

   _______________________________________________
   council mailing list
   council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
   https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190221/6a4bc7d7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7393 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190221/6a4bc7d7/image001-0001.png>