[council] Global Public Interest Framework Webinar
Pam Little
pam.little at alibaba-inc.com
Wed Sep 18 06:19:52 UTC 2019
Hi Marika,
Thank you for following up with the staff responsible on this.
Details on the 2nd webinar are as follows:
Time: 03:00 (UTC) – 04:00 (UTC) 19 September 2019
LINK TO THE SESSION: https://icann.zoom.us/j/532026397
Webinar ID: 532 026 397
International numbers available:
https://zoom.us/u/abhtJZkRdd
Reminder to save costs, please always select Computer or Internet Audio as the first choice when connecting to the Zoom Room, and only use Telephone Audio as a last resort.
The sessions will be in English only.
Kind regards,
Pam
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Sent At:2019 Sep. 8 (Sun.) 06:30
Recipient:Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; PAMELALITTLE <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Cc:gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>; council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>; council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
Subject:Re: [council] Global Public Interest Framework Webinar
Hi – we followed up with our colleagues that are responsible for this topic and they shared the following:
The webinar is open to everyone in the ICANN community and participation is strongly encouraged.
ICANN org is currently in the process of identifying a suitable time for the APAC region, during which a second webinar can be held. The details will be made available shortly on the Wiki page, and the Leadership Digest announcement will be updated accordingly. Given current workloads and scheduling conflicts, both webinars won’t be equally attended by Board members. The Board will join accordingly as its participation is seen as critical to encourage a fruitful and productive dialogue.
The current timeline reflects the expectation of the Board to deliver on this 2019 operational priority. As the Board engages in discussions and finds that the community needs more time, a timeline adjustment will be considered. The Board is committed to facilitating a bottom-up discussion on this important topic.
Best regards,
Marika
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 6, 2019 at 00:16
To: Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>, council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Global Public Interest Framework Webinar
Hi Pam,
Timing of the webinar: Could staff please confirm whether there will only be one webinar scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC and only community leaders are invited to such webinar. If so, it seems odd that a webinar on Global Public Interest Framework is scheduled at a time that disadvantages those from the APAC time zones. I would urge ICANN org to consider hosting two webinars (one of which at a time slot that is APAC region friendly) with both open to all community members.
I agree that there should be a second webinar with a friendlier time slot for those in APAC.
Best,
Rafik
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender:Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
Sent At:2019 Sep. 6 (Fri.) 14:33
Recipient:"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.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] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
I guess it is the best time to highlight the subject! Thank you for sharing Marika.
Best,
Elsa
—
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Marika!
On Sep 5, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:
In light of Elsa’s comments, you may be particularly interested in the following announcement from the Leadership Digest:
NEW: Global Public Interest Framework Webinar
Executive: Sally Costerton, Senior Adviser to President and Senior Vice President, Global Stakeholder Engagement
FOR: All Community Leaders
INFORMATION SHARING
You are invited to attend a webinar to learn more about one of the ICANN Board’s operational priorities: the public interest.
The global public interest is central to many of ICANN’s primary governance documents, and the ICANN Board hopes to play a role in facilitating a bottom-up, community-driven process to develop a framework as a toolkit for the ICANN community to consider the global public interest. These considerations would not change the process by which decisions are made but could instead serve as tools for the community to reinforce the commitment to the public interest and to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice, and public comments are in the global public interest. This includes the ICANN community guiding the ICANN Board about the public interest determination the latter must make in its decisions.
To learn more about the framework, please read the discussion paper [r20.rs6.net].
The Global Public Interest Framework Webinar has been scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC.
To join the webinar, please visit https://icann.zoom.us/j/288558444 [icann.zoom.us]
Zoom call details
Meeting ID: 288 558 444
Find your local number [r20.rs6.net]
Time zone converter [r20.rs6.net]
Best regards,
Marika
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:30
To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.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] FW: Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Hi Keith and all,
Thank you for the edits. I apologize that I haven't had the chance to incorporate this into the document in a new redlined version, but here is my suggested language about Global Public Interest, I'd be happy to review any amendments:
We are aware that one of ICANN's core values is to ascertain the global public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes (1.2(b)(ii) of ICANN's bylaws). However, as the term Global Public Interest is not in the bylaw language for PDPs such as in Section 9a of Annex A of the GNSO Policy Development Process, whereby: "Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN" and given that the board has invoked global public interest (or public interest) a number of times in its resolution as the basis of its decision regarding the EPDP phase 1 policy recommendations, the council is concerned with the use of the terms, particularly "Global Public Interest", in the board's letter to the council on EPDP Phase 1. It is important that when invoking public interest generally, that the Board be specific about the material effect that the recommendation has on public interest. Invoking GAC advice is not on its own sufficient. It is also important that when the term Global Public Interest is used, there should be a rationale as to why it is being used instead of the PDP bylaw language. The council is generally concerned about the process that the Board has used to assess the effect of the recommendations on global public interest and would be happy to have a bigger conversation on the issue going forward.
Happy to follow up,
Elsa
--
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:21 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Final reminder on this letter. We will send at 2000 UTC.
Thanks,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith via council
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:48 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Hi all,
Thanks to Darcy, Marie and Tatiana for their continued input on this letter.
I have incorporated most of the suggested edits and added the SG/C information we discussed on 22 August and mentioned below.
Attached are clean and redlined versions for your review.
Please look these over and send me any final comments by this Friday at 2000 UTC. We need to wrap this up and get it sent.
Thanks,
Keith
From: Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:16 PM
To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be>
Cc: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>; Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; council at gnso.icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Dear all,
during the call, it was agreed that in the bullet point two we could add which constituencies/SGs supported which position - maybe as a footnote? I don't have any language suggested because I wanted to ask Terri or Nathalie for help to get the "headcount" in the footnote right so I won't make any mistakes. Would this be possible? If there are any alternative suggestions to the footnote, I can propose the text, of course.
Warm regards,
Tanya
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 19:06, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo at aim.be> wrote:
Hi all,
Following from Darcy’s mail below, please find the suggested amendments from the BC in the attached.
Best to all,
Marie
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 4:08 PM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; council at gnso.icann.org
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
In follow up to my email below and today's Council discussion, please find my proposed edits to section 2 attached.
Thanks,
Darcy
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com> wrote:
Thanks, all, for preparing this. I’m struggling a bit with section 2. I agree we’ve characterized Council’s position accurately in section 2. But the rest seems confusing. Did we already provide the Board with the written explanation of what was discussed in Marrakech? If not, we should consider explaining that it’s provided now and then be more specific in our ask to the Board.
Thanks,
Darcy
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
Date: Friday, August 16, 2019 at 8:35 AM
To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Keith and Co
Thanks for your work on this. I think it captures pretty accurately where we are at
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/ [blacknight.com]
https://blacknight.blog/ [blacknight.blog]
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ [michele.blog]
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ [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> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Reply to: Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Date: Thursday 15 August 2019 at 17:59
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Hi all,
In preparation for our 22 August GNSO Council meeting, and further Council discussion on this topic, I am attaching an updated draft letter for your review.
We have attempted to incorporate everyone’s comments and expressed views in this draft.
To summarize, the goal of this letter is to:
Ensure the Council is proceeding as expected under Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws.
Create a record of the Council-Board engagement in Marrakech.
Advise the Board of the Council’s current thinking around Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 and Recommendation #12.
Seek further input from the Board, and ideally confirm a common understanding or more clearly understand any difference of opinion.
Ensure that the Council is setting good precedent in terms of how we engage in this kind of situation.
In response to comments from Marie and Flip, we have added language that acknowledges a difference of opinion among Councilors on the subject of Rec #12 and the deletion of data.
Please review and provide any comments to the list. We will also discuss next week. Let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks to all and I appreciate your patience on this one.
Best,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Letter to ICANN Board on EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations
Em 30 de jul de 2019, à(s) 10:14:000, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law> escreveu:
Rubens,
I share the feeling that it is uncommon to have a substantive discussion within the Council. However, that is exactly what the Bylaws mandate us to do within the atypical framework of expedited PDPs. Doesn’t the proposed one pager attached to the draft letter also address substance?
I don't think the bylaws mandate who specifically does that. It's a substantive discussion, but in the same way we ask WGs to take them, we can ask the RegData EPDP WG to answer the substance. If we engage ourselves in a discussion where we first delegated authority to a WG, we would be disenfranchising them.
BTW, Expedited PDPs only differ from Standard PDPs by not having an Issue Report to frame discussions. So everything we does here is a precedent for any future PDP, being an EPDP or not.
As to your second comment, I think we owe it to the community to provide the Board with recommendations and reasoning that is legally sound. If certain aspects of privacy have been previously overlooked, now seems the time to correct them.
IPC can send Board, PDP or anyone else any communication they see fit at any time. But the discussion here is not that, it's only the Board rationale for not approving the PDP recommendation.
Rubens
Best regards,
Flip
Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law
+32484652653
www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
<image001.png> [petillion.law]
Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 13:22
To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Cc: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>, "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
Flip,
I find strange we are having a substantive discussion on the topic within the Council. I believe our approach to board denials of PDP recommendation should be to ask the PDP WG what clarifications or positions they have, and relay them to the board. IPC is represented in the PDP so the same content you posted here could be used there while formulating the response, whatever that response would look like.
And still on process grounds, it's clear that the board rationale for not approving part of Rec. 12 is different from the IPC rationale you relayed to the Council. But the rationale that needs to be answered to is the Board one, because they've made the decision to not fully approve rec. 12. So while it's interesting to know the overall IPC position on the matter, the topic at hand is the Board decision.
Rubens
On 30 Jul 2019, at 06:54, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law> wrote:
Hi Ayden,
Thank you for your questions and for the opportunity to clarify our position. I understand your questions address the substance of the recommendations and not the GNSO Council’s remit within the Board Approval Process.
Regarding your first question:
You are correct that the ‘Organisation’ field pertains to information of legal entities and thus should not be subject to GDPR principles (and thus should not be deleted or even redacted). However, this is not treated as such in the Final Report. To avoid that we enter into circular discussions, we started from the premise in the Final Report (and the draft rationale for rec. #12) that the GDPR could apply to the ‘Organisation’ field. Our point is that, in such a case, the practices of both disclosing AND deleting data are subject to GDPR according to article 4 (2). ,The deletion of previously provided data can likewise not occur without a solid purpose, legal basis and safeguards.
Regarding your second question:
(i) You are correct that the GDPR requires consent to be informed, affirmative and freely given. However, active opt-in consent is only required when relying on consent as a legal basis (art. 6.1.a). The Final Report and the guidance of the EU Authorities and DPAs have established that, depending on the purpose, the performance of the registration contract (art. 6.1.b) and legitimate interest (art. 6.1.f) are the valid legal bases. For the latter, an opt-out mechanism or redaction mechanism can be sufficient to shift the balance in favour of the interested party (cfr. Article 29 WP Guidance on Legitimate Interest) and active opt-in consent is not required.
(ii) If you were to rely on consent as a legal basis, normally (and ideally) consent is obtained at the time of collection of the personal data (i.e. the registration of the domain name). It is at this point in time that the data subject (registrant) is properly informed of the processing activities and is engaged in providing the necessary information related to the purpose and legal bases (i.e., performance of the registration agreement). Practice has shown that there are a lot of problems with obtaining consent after the fact (i.e., during the performance of the registration agreement). Quite often data subjects cannot be contacted, are confused about the nature of the opt-in communication, are simply not interested, etc. Accordingly, the requirement of an active opt-in consent on the basis of a ‘review request’ to existing registrants unnecessarily risks losing valid organisation information on a wide scale.
I hope this sufficiently answers your questions and clarifies the position of the IPC on this matter.
Best regards,
Flip
Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law
+32484652653
www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
<image001.png> [petillion.law]
Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Reply to: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2019 at 00:41
To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Cc: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>, Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>, "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
Hi Flip,
Thanks for sharing this input from the IPC.
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but since data that does not pertain to natural persons is beyond the scope of the GDPR, I do not understand how you can make the claim that article 4 (2) of the GDPR does not allow for the organisation field to be deleted. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
I am also concerned that what you describe below - "Practice has shown that data subjects are generally reluctant to take active steps after their data has been collected to provide active opt-in consent (cfr. opt-in emails)" - sounds like a proposal for not obtaining consent that is valid under the GDPR, which I understand requires consent to be freely given.
Kind regards,
Ayden
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, 29 July 2019 18:29, Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law> wrote:
Dear Keith,
Dear All,
The IPC shares the Board’s concern that the option to delete the Organisation fields contents as a result of a refusal or failure to respond by the registrant upon a ‘review request’ by the registrar, risks resulting in a wide scale loss of crucial information about the registrant's identity.
While the IPC acknowledges that Recommendation #12 achieved consensus support in the EPDP Team’s Phase 1 Final Report, we agree with the Board that the “or delete the field contents” part of recommendation #12 2) b) is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.
We therefore do not agree that the recommendation should be resubmitted as is, and also not together with the presented rationale in the draft letter to the Board.
Irrespective of the debate as to whether the organisation field may contain personal data or not, the issues considered in the current rationale and the concerns of the Board can both be met by redacting the organisation data in case of an opt-out (or lack of active opt-in) instead of deleting.
· The concept of ‘privacy by default/design’ in the GDPR does not automatically necessitate the implementation of an opt-in mechanism (especially considering the legitimate interests attached to the transparency of organisation information online);
· The deletion/erasure by a controller of previously provided personal data is also considered ‘processing’ (article 4 (2) GDPR), for which the controller must determine a purpose and proper legal basis. As a result, a registrar cannot simply delete important information provided by the registrant unless (i) the registrant has requested the erasure of the ‘Organisation’ field by exercising his right to erasure (this right must be actively exercised and cannot be inferred), (ii) the retention of the ‘Organisation’ field is no longer necessary for the purposes of processing the domain name registration data (Recommendation #15 implies that the retention period of the data elements would at the minimum be the ‘life of the registration’), or (iii) the registrar can justify the deletion on the basis of another valid legal basis (such as the consent of the registrant).
Practice has shown that data subjects are generally reluctant to take active steps after their data has been collected to provide active opt-in consent (cfr. opt-in emails). Together with the expected difficulties in contacting the registrants and verifying their (lack of) consent on a wide scale, the IPC believes (in accordance with the Board Statement) that this would pose a serious and unnecessary risk to lose important registrant information.
Procedurally, we fail to see the use of the checks and balances incorporated in the ‘Board Approval Process’ of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the Bylaws if it would be outside the GNSO Council’s remit to allow a modification to the Consensus Policy recommendation delivered by the EPDP Team. Section 6 of Annex A-1 of the Bylaws specifically provides:
“At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation.”
The IPC therefore believes it is in the GNSO Council’s remit to consult with the Board and modify a Consensus Policy Recommendation if such modification alleviates concerns raised in the Board Statement and is in the best interest of the ICANN community and ICANN.
In accordance with the concern raised in the Board Statement, the IPC therefore believes that the “or delete the field contents” part (deletion option) of Recommendation #12 2) b) should be deleted.
Best regards,
Flip
Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law
+32484652653
www.petillion.law [petillion.law]
<image002.png> [petillion.law]
Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats
From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Date: Monday, 29 July 2019 at 21:41
To: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>, 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
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 [petillion.law]
<image003.png> [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> 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> 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>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:53 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; 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
--
--
Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
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 [icann.org]) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]). 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/20190918/1183b28d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the council
mailing list