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

[Holly Raiche]

I agree with both Jonathan and Bastiaan. We should not be seen trying to reopen Phase One discussions.  

Holly

> On Mar 29, 2019, at 3:13 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> 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 <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 <https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/email-disclaimer>  ***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190329/82786d94/attachment.html>