[Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby

Amr Elsadr aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja
Wed May 8 11:14:02 UTC 2019


Hi,

To be honest, I’m not sure how I feel about this suggestion. I suppose it’d depend on what we would be expected to do with the answer we receive. A more appealing approach to me would be to get a clearer understanding of exactly what the “small group” will be expected to do (what it’s mandate and scope of its work will look like). I believe this is something on which there was broad agreement during last week’s call. Clarifying this would be helpful to the EPDP Team making its own determination on what balance of skills and representation might be found to be constructive.

If the purpose of the additional bullet is simply to help inform our decision on appointments to the small group, then I have no objection to it. However, if adding it will result in ICANN org setting parameters of some sort that restricts the EPDP Team’s ability to make small group member selections, then I would not be very much in favor of this. Ultimately, I believe the decision on the composition of this group should be ours, and hopefully Goran’s team can accommodate our choices. We just need to have a better understanding of what is being asked of us to make this decision.

There are bits and pieces that are suggestive to what the small group’s job might be in both Goran’s letter as well as Keith’s email, but still…, the task before the “small group” isn’t precisely clear.

It seems to me that a combination of bullets 2 and 4 in the draft response are meant to seek clarity on this, however, it might be helpful to make a point of enquiring about this with more clarity. If we could amend the fourth bullet to read something like:

“What is the expected scope of work of the small group, and could examples of types of questions/issues the group is expected to work on be provided?”

Also, I propose that this bullet be moved to the top of the list to stress its importance, as the answer to this question is significant to how we assess the answers to the other ones. It should probably be followed by what is bullet 2 in the current draft, then bullet 1, then finally, bullet 3.

Furthermore, Goran’s letter mentions that further work will need to be done to inform the discussions with the EC and DPAs, while Keith’s email goes further when he says:

> “The key takeaways from our interaction with Goran were (1) it is still unclear that a UAM with ICANN in a centralized role will be a viable solution, (2) that he is still working with the European Commission and DPAs to explore whether a UAM might be viable (both from a legal and risk assumption perspective), and (3) that he wants to engage with the EPDP Team to help inform that ongoing work.”

It would be of great assistance to us if more details on this could be shared with the EPDP Team. We’ve already seen comments from the EC on the Phase 1 Final Report and Recommendations, as well as the follow-up correspondence that Chris was kind of enough to share with us. However, my impression I’m left with following Goran’s letter and Keith’s email is that there has been some discussion as well as concerns expressed with a UAM based on the Technical Study Group’s proposed model.

This isn’t something we’ve really worked on as a team, yet, and unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t seen any details about a to-and-fro between ICANN and the EC and EU DPAs on this. I assume these would indeed need to be shared once the small group is formed, however, having a head-start wouldn’t be a bad thing. Is this something we could bake in to our response?

I hope this helps.

Thanks.

Amr

> On May 4, 2019, at 2:57 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Marika and Janis.  My only suggestion would be to add a request for any particular expertise or background for members of this “small group”, or if these folks are simply meant to be representative of the EPDP.
>
> -------------
> James Bladel
> GoDaddy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2019 07:13
> To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - proposed response to Göran Marby
>
> Dear EPDP Team,
>
> On behalf of Janis, per the action item from our last meeting, please find attached the proposed response to Göran in relation to this letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/marby-to-karklins-drazek-01may19-en.pdf).
>
> Please share any comments you may have by Wednesday 8 May at the latest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
> Marika Konings
> Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: marika.konings at icann.org
>
> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our [interactive courses](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses_gnso&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=Cg5uQf0yAfw-qlFZ0WNBfsLmmtBNUiH0SuI6Vg-gXBQ&e=) and visiting the [GNSO Newcomer pages](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gnso.icann.org_files_gnso_presentations_policy-2Defforts.htm-23newcomers&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=5DXgId95wrCsHi--pxTiJD7bMB9r-T5ytCn7od3CF2Q&s=tT-E2RoAucUb3pfL9zmlbRdq1sytaEf765KOEkBVCjk&e=).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190508/527a9916/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list