[Gnso-epdp-team] Revised Consensus Designation

Thu Jul 30 22:13:05 UTC 2020

I'd love to hear reactions to Volker's question (If the requestor side does
not see this as an improvement over the status quo, what are we left with?
What is the purpose in building this SSAD if those who are set to benefit
from it do not seem to want it?) .  How should the Board see this?

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:26 AM Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
wrote:

> Conditional support is support in my book.
>
> In my personal opinion, I should again stress that as CP we are proposing
> to build this system for the requestor side, not for ourselves. If the
> requestor side does not see this as an improvement over the status quo,
> what are we left with? What is the purpose in building this SSAD if those
> who are set to benefit from it do not seem to want it?
>
> We seem to have divergence on Priority Levels, SLAs and Financial
> Sustainability. So are we better off with a system without these and should
> strike the recommendations altogether?
> As to financing, in the end, we will still have to figure out how this
> system is financed and I doubt the solution ICANN comes up with will be any
> different than what we have proposed, especially since I doubt we will ever
> agree to registrants or CPs paying for this. The general principle of
> whoever orders the music shall pay for the band will always apply.
>
> I would therefore like to urge all parties withholding their support to
> re-think their positions and move away from these all-or-nothing
> approaches. Having caught a small fish is better than not catching a fish
> at all.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> Volker A. Greimann
> General Counsel and Policy Manager
> *KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH*
>
> T: +49 6894 9396901
> M: +49 6894 9396851
> F: +49 6894 9396851
> W: www.key-systems.net
>
> Key-Systems GmbH is a company registered at the local court of
> Saarbruecken, Germany with the registration no. HR B 18835
> CEO: Oliver Fries and Robert Birkner
>
> Part of the CentralNic Group PLC (LON: CNIC) a company registered in
> England and Wales with company number 8576358.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 2:36 PM Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja> wrote:
>
>> All, sorry it’s me again.
>>
>> Rafik just pointed out to me that he has written about conditional
>> support in his e-mail. That is true and I should have mentioned that.
>> However, conditional support is nothing that GNSO rules know as a term and
>> the cautious interpretation thereof by the Chair is also nothing that the
>> rules know. We will see how this plays out, but
>>
>> - I would prefer for objections and support to be unambiguous so that the
>> chair’s designation is made easier (and less prone to be complained about)
>>
>> - conditional support might be interpreted less cautiously as objections,
>> particularly if there is more movement on the level of support before the
>> deadline.
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>>
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>:
>>
>> Hi Rafik, all,
>> I hope you forgive me for writing a few lines in my personal capacity.
>> These are not ISPCP comments, but I will point out that the ISPCP does not
>> object to any of the recommendations in the spirit of collaboration and to
>> support the work we have done. Are we happy with everything in the report,
>> certainly not, but we are where we are. We know this is a challenging topic
>> from a legal and a policy perspective and we all have to trust in the
>> system to be improved over time when there will be more trust in such
>> system and less areas that are unknown.
>>
>> Looking at the number of objections is quite shocking. We only have full
>> consensus on 1 recommendation. A few quick points:
>>
>> 1. How shall a system be implemented / operationalised absent a
>> recommendation on financial sustainability? We have divergence there, which
>> means that we have nothing for the Council or ICANN Org to lean.
>>
>> 2. Accuracy was taken off the table by the GNSO Council, so I am not sure
>> whether it is adequate wo withhold support for recommendations because the
>> accuracy part has not been worked on. Many ISPCP members have an interest
>> in the accuracy discussion, but that will be dealt with elsewhere.
>>
>> 3. Recommendation 18 is bordering divergence. The system will only get
>> better if there is a good process for making it better within the
>> boundaries of what can be done under GNSO rules. I think the compromise
>> that was struck is a good basis for that. Changes to the system will be
>> even harder if there is no good support for Rec. 18.
>>
>> 4. Question for Rafik: How will you deal with conditional support? As far
>> as I know the rules, there is nothing describing conditional support. Will
>> you consider these as objections? That would change the landscape, in
>> particular with respect to Rec. 18.
>>
>> Thanks for reading thus far.
>>
>> Best,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> Am 30.07.2020 um 12:07 schrieb Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Thanks for reviewing the consensus designation and sending by the
>> deadline your input to indicate support or objection to recommendations. I
>> revised the consensus designation based on what was received by the
>> deadline.
>>
>> I will give 24 hours for final review to check the revised consensus
>> designation, 31st July 12:00PM UTC. The staff still needs to finish
>> attaching the different pieces for the final report by the deadline. I
>> would like to emphasize one thing in particular. Regarding ALAC
>> conditional support for SSAD related recommendations, unfortunately I
>> have cautiously interpreted them as opposition for several reasons.  Of
>> course, if the ALAC disagrees with this designation, they can share their
>> input by the deadline.
>>
>> I cannot find any mention in the GNSO working group guidelines covering
>> such cases. I also cannot recall similar precedents in previous GNSO PDP
>> WGs. The consensus designation is supposed to be final at the time of
>> publication and report submission and shouldn’t be amended when moving to
>> GNSO council review since they are to some extent the basis for council
>> decision on approving or not. The GNSO council will review the report and
>> policy recommendations in order to make a decision. I will highlight in my
>> communication by the time of submission and during the presentation of the
>> report the positions indicated by the groups regarding consensus and their
>> minority statements. I understand the intent and request for consideration
>> made to GNSO council but procedures didn’t envision such a situation of
>> having consensus designation in undecided or pending state and in my role
>> as chair or council liaison I am bound to follow the procedures. I
>> cannot guarantee GNSO council decisions or actions.
>>
>> On a separate note, in order to close out final issues, can RrSG can
>> respond to Laureen's last message on PPSAI (recommendation #19)? On
>> recommendation #7, I took the note of the latest language agreed by RySG
>> and BC, removing the RySG no-support of the recommendation. I have
>> concluded that BC doesn’t agree to drop the footnote and as result I have
>> taken note of the NCSG opposition in the consensus designation.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> <Consensus designation table - 30 July 2020 .docx>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
>> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
>> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
>> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
>> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
>> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200730/158d96bd/attachment.html>