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

[Amr Elsadr]

Thanks, Janis. Appreciate the clarification. I will not be joining you all in Montreal, but will try to follow remotely, when I can.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> Indeed, I was corrected after sending out my message. I am not well aware of procedures. Sorry for that.
> We will discuss way forward at ICANN 66. For the time being, we need to concentrate on closing building blocs and paving the way for the release of the Initial report.
> Best regards
> JK
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
>
>> 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/c42d7afa/attachment-0001.html>