[Gnso-epdp-team] schedule problem: Legal vs. Natural issue

Amr Elsadr aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja
Mon Oct 14 11:33:12 UTC 2019


Hi Janis,

Some thoughts on this:

Doesn’t this effectively mean that recommendations on Priority 2 issues will not be subject to a public comment period? Is this something we would want to do?

Of course, we could initiate a second public comment period for a Draft Final Report, which includes the Priority 2 issues related recommendations, but that will likely defeat the desired outcome of trying to wrap Phase 2 up as efficiently as possible.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Oct 12, 2019, at 11:49 PM, J <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thank you for your mail and question.
>
> During the ICANN66 part of the last session on Thursday will be devoted to discuss a way forward until the end-Jan f2f meeting and ICANN67.
>
> Currently we are working towards objective of submitting the initial report for public comments by early December. After that we will take up all Priority 2 issues aiming at submitting recommendations together with the Final Report.
>
> If for any reason we will not meet objective of early December, we will start addressing P2 issues in a run-up to and at the end-Jan f2f meeting. In that case objective will be to publish initial report containing also recommendations on P2 issues.
>
> Hope such approach will find support of the Team.
>
> Best regards
>
> JK
>
> [ ]
> From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 1:45 AM
> To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] schedule problem: Legal vs. Natural issue
>
> The Phase 1 report said:
>
> “EPDP Team Recommendation #17.
>
> 1) The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so.
>
> 2) The EPDP Team recommends that as soon as possible ICANN Org undertakes a study, for which the terms of reference are developed in consultation with the community, that considers:
>
> * The feasibility and costs including both implementation and potential liability costs of differentiating between legal and natural persons;
>
> * Examples of industries or other organizations that have successfully differentiated between legal and natural persons;
>
> * Privacy risks to registered name holders of differentiating between legal and natural persons; and
>
> * Other potential risks (if any) to registrars and registries of not differentiating.
>
> 3) The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2.”
>
> The homework above looks like a pre-requisite for completing the charter and delivering the Final Report, but AFAIK it is not underway.  How are we going to solve this dilemma?
>
> I note that some guidance about the above is contained in the Bird & Bird “legal versus natural” memo delivered at the end of Phase 1.
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20191014/4cd4fed1/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list