[council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations

Mon Jul 29 19:41:10 UTC 2019

Dear Keith,
Dear All,

Due to the vacation period, we will be able to send in the IPC comments later today or tomorrow morning my time.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards,

Flip

Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law
+32484652653
www.petillion.law

[signature_786348200]<http://www.petillion.law/>

  Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 July 2019 at 18:53
To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations

 We support the current draft of the letter and comments of Darcy.

Also I'd like to underline , that the modification of the recommendations is for GNSO Council, not for the Board
 ,and that doing micro management of PDPs is not in the GNSO Council's role.

Maxim Alzoba

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 22:44 Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com<mailto:darcy.southwell at endurance.com>> wrote:
Thanks you, Keith.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) agrees that it's outside the Council's remit to modify, or even suggest modification of, a consensus recommendation from a PDP working group and therefore objects to modifying Recommendation 12 to remove the deletion option.  The Council should seek to formalize the rationale provided to the Board in Marrakech and resubmit the consensus recommendation to the Board for approval.  Therefore, RrSG supports the Council's letter to the Board as written regarding Recommendation 12.

Regarding Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, the EPDP Team and Board have been quite clear that further legal analysis is necessary to ensure Purpose 2 is drafted consistent with applicable laws.  In its Final Report, the EPDP Team recommended Purpose 2 be further evaluated during phase 2 of the EPDP.  In its resolution, the Board clearly instructed ICANN Org to engage the DPAs to accomplish the necessary legal analysis to perform the work.  That legal analysis must be completed before the EPDP Team can even begin to consider how to revise Purpose 2.  Further, it is not typical for the Council to instruct a PDP as to when it works on such specific tasks.  It is up to the PDP Working Group, with its leadership and coordinating with ICANN staff, to prioritize its work.  So far, the EPDP Team has prioritized the work related to the System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data, consistent with its Charter, and with the concerns of many of the GNSO Councilors.  At this point, the RrSG sees no reason for the Council to intervene to reprioritize the Purpose 2 work ahead of the chartered work.

Best,
Darcy

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:30 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Marie,

Thanks for your initial feedback here, and for the discussion during yesterday’s Council call.

On your second point below, related to the Board’s treatment of Recommendation 12, I believe it is outside the Council’s remit to suggest, or even allow, a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered to us by the EPDP Team, and subsequently delivered by Council to the Board. In my view, it is the role of Council to now hold the Board accountable for its decision to not accept Rec 12 in full, and to call for the Board to accept it following the clarification they requested.

I welcome further discussion on these items following discussion with our respective SGs and Cs, but that’s my current view.

Best,
Keith

From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo at aim.be>>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations

Hi Keith,

Thanks for sharing the draft. I’m afraid I haven’t been able to discuss this much with our members yet (sorry) but on an initial reading, the BC does have some concerns.

On your first point, on rec 1, while the first sentence is great, we have problems with the second. As you know from the comments we attached to Janis’ letter, we really need to give the EPDP Team a clear instruction to reword this and replace the placeholder language; I understand that it’s not on the Team’s roadmap right now. We really think that at a minimum, Council needs to tell the Team to do that and get it back ASAP for Board action. We all agree that the EPDP should deal with this, so we really do need a purpose 2 (for 3rd party access) for the Board to adopt.

As for your 2nd para, on rec 12, we don’t agree that it should just be resubmitted as is. As you know, the BC really does think that as far as the ORG field goes, Rec 12 should be amended to remove the deletion option. There could always be an option of to allow the contracted parties to update any inaccuracies in the ORG field, as appropriate, if they need that.

Looking forward to the discussion!

Thanks

Marie

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 11:49 AM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations

Hi all,

In preparation for our Council meeting this week, please review the attached draft letter to the ICANN Board concerning next steps on the two EPDP Phase 1 recommendations not accepted in full by the Board.

As you will recall, we had a good conversation with the ICANN Board during our working session lunch, and we committed to following up on the issue. The draft letter is self-explanatory, and our goal is to ensure a common understanding between Council and Board before we take our formal action to request Board reconsideration on Recommendation 12. We want to avoid an ongoing back-and-forth on the issue, so our hope is this letter will pave the way to a clear resolution.

Please review before our Council meeting.

Thanks to Rafik and Pam for leading this work while I was on PTO.

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

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190729/1137b063/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/20190729/1137b063/image001-0001.png>