[Gnso-epdp-team] Welcome - EPDP on the Temporary Specification for Registration Data
marika.konings at icann.org
Mon Aug 6 09:21:01 UTC 2018
Amr, in relation to point 1, the second public comment forum is currently indeed what has been used by the ICANN Board in relation to GNSO policy recommendations to comply with the following Bylaw provision (see i and ii):
Section 3.6. NOTICE AND COMMENT ON POLICY ACTIONS
(a) With respect to any policies that are being considered by the Board for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall:
(i) provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies are being considered for adoption and why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical, earlier) prior to any action by the Board;
(ii) provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments (such comment period to be aligned with ICANN's public comment practices), prior to any action by the Board; and
(iii) in those cases where the policy action affects public policy concerns, to request the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC" or "Governmental Advisory Committee") and take duly into account any advice timely presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee on its own initiative or at the Board's request.
(b) Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant policy development process, an in-person public forum shall also be held for discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 3.6(a)(ii), prior to any final Board action.
(c) After taking action on any policy subject to this Section 3.6, the Board shall publish in the meeting minutes the rationale for any resolution adopted by the Board (including the possible material effects, if any, of its decision on the global public interest, including a discussion of the material impacts to the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS, financial impacts or other issues that were considered by the Board in approving such resolutions), the vote of each Director voting on the resolution, and the separate statement of any Director desiring publication of such a statement.
(d) Where a Board resolution is consistent with GAC Consensus Advice (as defined in Section 12.2(a)(x)), the Board shall make a determination whether the GAC Consensus Advice was a material factor in the Board's adoption of such resolution, in which case the Board shall so indicate in such resolution approving the decision (a "GAC Consensus Board Resolution") and shall cite the applicable GAC Consensus Advice. To the extent practical, the Board shall ensure that GAC Consensus Board Resolutions only relate to the matters that were the subject of the applicable GAC Consensus Advice and not matters unrelated to the applicable GAC Consensus Advice. For the avoidance of doubt: (i) a GAC Consensus Board Resolution shall not have the effect of making any other Board resolutions in the same set or series so designated, unless other resolutions are specifically identified as such by the Board; and (ii) a Board resolution approving an action consistent with GAC Consensus Advice received during a standard engagement process in which input from all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees has been requested shall not be considered a GAC Consensus Board Resolution based solely on that input, unless the GAC Consensus Advice was a material factor in the Board's adoption of such resolution.
Staff has reached out to our colleagues supporting the ICANN Board to see if there are other ways in which this Bylaw requirement could be and which might require less time. As soon we receive their feedback we will let you know, but it is indeed staff’s understanding that at the end of the day the Board will need to decide how to ensure that this Bylaw obligation is met.
On 8/3/18, 20:42, "Gnso-epdp-team on behalf of Amr Elsadr" <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org on behalf of aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi Kurt and all,
I have a couple of questions about your proposal to hold only one public comment period on the output of this EPDP Team:
1. Is the decision to eliminate the public comment period prior to a Board vote to adopt GNSO recommendations a decision we can make? Doesn’t the Board need to make this decision?
2. Isn’t there a provision in the RA that allows Registry Operators to provide notice to ICANN before the end of this public comment period, if they believe that a proposed Consensus Policy may be in violation of applicable law? Is this a consideration that needs to be taken into account?
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 12:53 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
> Dear All:
> I am honored to be named chair of this EPDP team. I know many of you well and look forward to working with all of you.
> I’ve attached some thoughts about the operation of our team. These suggestions are intended to increase our effectiveness and facilitate the building of consensus. I appreciate your comments on any or all of them, either during the meeting or offline.
> The attached outline tracks to the meeting agenda, which is being sent out simultaneously with this email. If you have questions about the agenda items, please check the document attached here for some degree of explanation.
> Our first meeting (1 Aug 14:00UTC) will concern mainly process issues but I have reserved some time at the end for substantive discussion as we should get started in some small way.
> I look forward to seeing you all on Wednesday.
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<Welcome to the PDP .pdf>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team