[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Drafting an advice to the ICANN board: EPDP finaltreporttphase 1

[Marita Moll]

Thanks Jonathan. I have admit, I am a little confused re: the purpose of 
the advice. Probably a result of being reasonably new to some of these 
ICANN processes. Not sure what we expect to achieve.

Marita

On 3/28/2019 12:13 PM, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
> I think those are good process points but unless I misunderstood, the 
> purpose of the advice is to put the community on notice for Phase II, 
> not reopen phase I
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of 
> Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 28, 2019 8:58:45 PM
> *To:* CPWG
> *Subject:* [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Drafting an advice to the ICANN board: 
> EPDP final report phase 1
> Hi all,
>
> With regard to 
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105383443
>
> I expressed earlier that I do not think that contracted parties should 
> be mandated to differentiate between registrants on a geographic 
> basis. See rec#16 of the final phase 1 EPDP-report. I was on the CPWG 
> call yesterday, but considering the time constraint I felt it was not 
> the place to touch on the specific issue of (non) geographical 
> distinction again as it is not clear to me yet whether the penholders 
> indeed want to raise this a concern in the advice.
>
> (Btw Even if geographical distinction is mandated, according to rec#10 
> contracted can still choose to redact data even if the GDPR is not 
> applicable. But that is beside the point here)
>
> Besides me potentially disagreeing with the (part of the) content of a 
> (proposed) advice, I am slightly concerned with regard to the process 
> and how it might be perceived by others. Even when only we stress the 
> importance of a Unified Access Model (UAM) and that we want a clear 
> distinction to be made by contracted parties between natural and legal 
> persons, both of which I can agree with, these topics are explicitly 
> to be covered by phase 2. The UAM model is a no brainer and meant to 
> be one of the main end-products of phase 2. And Rec# 17 in the phase 1 
> end-report is very clear on the natural vs legal distinction that 
> needs to be resolved.
>
> Also:
>
> - We had plenty of opportunities to raise our concerns in the EPDP 
> deliberations themselves, I’m sure Hadia and Alan did a great job;
> - Our concerns are included in our statement in the phase 1 final 
> report that the board will take note of;
> - We reiterated these in the recently shared GAC-ALAC statement
>
> And the final report of phase 1 says on page 148, Annex
>
> 'Note the BC / IPC minority statement. All other groups support the 
> Final Report.’
>
> I am sure all groups had to make compromises to reach consensus and 
> support the report. I do not think it would look good if we would be 
> perceived, with an advice to the board, as attempting to open up the 
> report and cherry pick recommendations we like and ask the board not 
> to follow up on those we disagree with.
>
> thanks,
> Bastiaan
>
>
>
>
>
> ***  Please note that this communication is confidential, legally 
> privileged, and subject to a disclaimer: 
> https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer ***
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190328/1d22e481/attachment-0001.html>