[council] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart - EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2
Kurt Pritz
kurt at kjpritz.com
Sun Feb 21 21:45:33 UTC 2021
Hi Philippe and everyone:
In response to your requests for thoughts on the Board consultation and the letter received from the Board this past Friday, I have drafted some ideas for a statement in response.
I welcome edits and questions.
Given the timing, I am just sharing these same thoughts with the CPH EPDP members now also.
Depending on the level of support this receives. It could be read on behalf of the Council and if not, the CPH or CPH EPDP team, and if not, just me.
I hope it is clear and helpful
Best regards,
Kurt
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:22 PM, Tom Dale <tomwdale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Kurt.
>
> That was also my initial response to the correspondence. There appears to be a none-too-subtle gap between the Council’s request and the Board’s response.
>
> Re the ODP, has the concept/framework/guidelines/whatever been published in final form since the January webinar? I can’t seem to find it. The relevant web page <https://community.icann.org/display/ODP/Operational+Design+Phase+Home> suggests they are still processing community input.
>
> I will look at in more detail over the weekend.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Tom
>
>
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz via council <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Saturday, 20 February 2021 at 7:46 am
> To: philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart - EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2
>
> Hi Philippe and everyone:
>
> I have given some thought to this but not enough and hope to have something well (or at least better) thought out by Monday.
>
> My early thinking is that:
>
> 1. The Council resolution called for a specific analysis: "Noting some of the questions surrounding the financial sustainability of SSAD and some of the concerns expressed within the different minority statements, the GNSO Council requests a consultation with the ICANN Board as part of the delivery of the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board to discuss these issues, including whether a further cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before the ICANN Board considers all SSAD-related recommendations for adoption."
>
> The resolution doesn't request an "ODP"; it requests analysis of sustainability and cost-benefit.
>
> 2. The Board responded and stated, essentially, “we welcome the consultation and will create a methodology (the ODP) to address the issues raised.”
>
> 3, The Council wrote: great, here are the items we think are necessary to accomplish the analysis of sustainability and cost-benefit (and listed the items in Philipp’s email below).
>
> 4. Now Maarten has responded, "well, an ODP doesn’t cover those things."
>
> In other words, the Council did not ask for an “ODP,” it requested analysis of financial sustainability and cost-benefit. The Board invented an ODP and then said, it does not apply to the request of the Council.
>
> In addition, the comment of the Council on the ODP draft was that there be transparency throughout the ODP process. In this most recent letter, the Board essentially states, we will have this consultation now and another when the ODP is complete. With that statement, I think we should pointedly discuss transparency, especially as one of the approaches that might lend itself well to SSAD is a phased or agile-like implementation.
>
> Again I apologize for the not-well-thought out blurt. I will attempt to draft a statement on behalf of the CPH for the meeting and can consult with any of you over the weekend on it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 10:12 AM, philippe.fouquart--- via council <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> In preparation for our call with the board on Monday, please have a thought the specific aspects you would like to raise in relation to the launch of the ODP for the SSAD, and share them with the list if you can.
>
> For example, as it relates to the Maarten’s letter below, there seems to be a difference of appreciation on the aspects which the operational assessment is expected to cover, as identified in Council’s previous letter https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-icann-board-22jan21-en.pdf <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-icann-board-22jan21-en.pdf>.
> The Council suggests that the operational impact assessment would cover, at a minimum, the following aspects:
> · Expected costs / resources;
> · Expected benefits;
> · Expected time-to-market;
> · Possible business risks;
> · Possible legal risks;
> · Possible reputational risks;
> · Implementation considerations (e.g., outsourcing or phased deployment of the solution);
> · Opportunity Costs (e.g., what projects, if any, would be put on hold or not move forward to implement the SSAD).
>
> Thanks.
> Regards,
> Philippe
>
> From: FOUQUART Philippe TGI/OLN
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 4:29 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: FW: [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart - EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Please note the attached response on our EPDP phase 2 letter to the board in advance of our call next week.
>
> This is mostly relative to how we approach the discussion, but I’ll quote the part that deals with the remit of this ODP.
>
> The Board also would like to remind the Council that the purpose of the ODP is to assess the operational impact of the SSAD-related policy recommendations on ICANN org and to inform the Board of these impacts prior to the Board's consideration of the policy recommendations. The ODP is not intended to determine whether the concept of the SSAD accounts for the cost and effort required to implement the proposed system. We believe this specific question has been addressed by the Council in approving the recommendations and forwarding them to the Board.
>
> Best regards,
> Philippe
>
> From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Wendy Profit via Gnso-chairs
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 2:50 AM
> To: gnso-chairs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>; gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Cc: Maarten Botterman <maarten.botterman at board.icann.org <mailto:maarten.botterman at board.icann.org>>; Secretary <secretary at icann.org <mailto:secretary at icann.org>>; Correspondence <Correspondence at icann.org <mailto:Correspondence at icann.org>>; Board Ops Team <board-ops-team at icann.org <mailto:board-ops-team at icann.org>>
> Subject: [gnso-chairs] [CORRESPONDENCE] Maarten Botterman to Philippe Fouquart - EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2
>
> Dear Philippe Fouquart,
>
> Please find the attached letter from Maarten Botterman regarding the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
> Wendy Profit
> ICANN
> Board Operations Senior Manager
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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/20210221/fe09ec3c/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Board Consultation Statement.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16817 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210221/fe09ec3c/BoardConsultationStatement-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210221/fe09ec3c/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the council
mailing list