[GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Reminder - google doc input due dateWednesday 24 February
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca
Wed Feb 23 14:08:14 UTC 2022
Ditto! It has been a very distracting time here in Canada's Capital.....
Hopefully coming soon...
Stephanie
On 2022-02-22 11:20 a.m., Kapin, Laureen via GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam wrote:
>
> You are not alone Sarah – I too am still making my way through the
> document and find the deadline a challenging one.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Laureen Kapin
>
> Acting Assistant Director for International Consumer Protection
>
> Office of International Affairs
>
> Federal Trade Commission
>
> lkapin at ftc.gov
>
> *From:* GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam
> <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Sarah Wyld
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 22, 2022 10:54 AM
> *To:* Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>;
> gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Reminder - google doc input due
> dateWednesday 24 February
>
> Good morning team,
>
> I have regrettably not yet finished reading the entire ODA and as such
> I do not expect to be able to have my full review complete in time to
> address all the questions by the 24^th . I will of course continue
> working through it, but wanted to let you know now. Are others in the
> same situation, or am I the straggler?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> *Sarah Wyld*, CIPP/E
> Policy & Privacy Manager
> Pronouns: she/they
> swyld at tucows.com <mailto:swyld at tucows.com>
>
> *From: *Marika Konings <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Sent: *February 22, 2022 3:23 AM
> *To: *gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org
> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Reminder - google doc input due
> dateWednesday 24 February
>
> Apologies, that should be *THURSDAY* 24 February COB.
>
> *From: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 22 February 2022 at 09:18
> *To: *"gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org" <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Reminder - google doc input due date Wednesday 24 February
>
> Reminder, please provide your input on the google doc questions (see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit>)
> _by Wednesday 24 February COB_ at the latest! Thanks Sarah for being
> the first to complete the assignment.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Caitlin, Berry and Marika
>
> *From: *GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam
> <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Caitlin
> Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 17:36
> *To: *"gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org" <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] Notes from GNSO Council SSAD ODP
> Small Team meetings - 9 Feb and 16 Feb 2022
>
> Dear SSAD ODP Small Team Members,
>
> Below, please find the notes from the first two meetings of the SSAD
> ODP Council Small Team.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika, Berry, and Caitlin
>
> --
>
> SSAD ODP Council Small Team – Meeting #1 – Wednesday, 9 February 2022
>
> 1. Welcome & introductions
> 2. Review of small team assignment (seehere
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/178587048/Small%20Team%20Assignment%20-%20Phase%202%20SSAD%20ODP%20-%2031%20January%202022.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1643648918000&api=v2>)
>
> The small team is expected to consider the concerns outlined in the
> ICANN Board letter and with these concerns in mind analyze the SSAD
> ODA and provide the Council with its feedback on:
>
> • Whether the ODA has correctly interpreted the intent of the SSAD
> recommendations in the proposed implementation;
>
> • Whether the ODA has overlooked any key aspects of the SSAD
> recommendations that should be factored in by the ICANN Board when it
> considers the recommendations;
>
> • Its view on the concerns identified by the ICANN Board and potential
> options that could be considered, either in the form of changes to the
> proposed implementation or the policy recommendations themselves, to
> address these concerns (note, these are expected to be high level
> suggestions at this stage);
>
> • Any other aspects that help inform the Council’s deliberations and
> consultation with the ICANN Board.
>
> Procedural options:
>
> 1. ICANN Board adopts the recommendations – No role for the GNSO Council
> 2. The ICANN Board determines that the adoption of the recommendation
> is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN – GNSO
> Council requested to affirm or modify its recommendations in the
> form of a “Supplemental Recommendation”
> 3. GNSO Council decides to make amendments or modification to the
> policy recommendations – Under section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual
> the GNSO Council can make amendments or modifications to the
> recommendations it approved.
>
> o Question about the assignment:
> o What are the expectations of Council and Council
> leadership are for this small team?
> o There is a double mission: the Board has written to the
> Council and sent questions; in principle, we should
> provide answers. At the same time, the Board has asked
> some leading questions – seem to be guiding us on a path
> into dividing the SSAD into piecemeal options. Think this
> group should step back and analyze the ODA to see if there
> are additional questions.
> o Not hearing an assignment to go back to Council with next
> steps
> o Small team will look at how to mitigate concerns either
> through looking at changing the proposed implementation or
> changing the policy recommendations. If there is an
> opinion, should the Council take back the recommendations,
> or does the Board agree with the changes? If so, it will
> go back to the Council for potential addressing.
> o Do not anticipate this group becoming an EPDP and starting
> over but rather coming up with high-level ideas that could
> help
> o The 3 first questions in the Google Doc are intended to
> inform the first 2 questions – the intent is to break
> these questions down into small pieces. If there is not a
> common or shared view on some of these questions, the
> small team may just provide the different views back on
> some of these questions
>
> 3. Review of questions for input (see
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit__;!!PtGJab4!rQeuBfxV027d4Kwf4izH4KoewFuWOrA7U8ywR3J95c3eh-LA5Og4kGnwXAOuEP_hdpAn-gbmTEw$>)
>
> o Question 3 seems to suggest that there are important
> benefits from SSAD and should be added to the benefits
> included in the ODA
> o Is this the right place, or if not, where can we have the
> discussion of code of conduct? If we could expedite the
> process of a code of conduct, that would be beneficial.
> o The board letter didn’t just raise questions; it also
> outlined a number of concerns. The objective here is to
> see if those concerns are shared – the question here –
> there may not be a perceived benefit – are there benefits
> that need to be highlighted that would outweigh the
> potential concerns or costs?
> o The usage noted in the ODA may be optimistic, should we
> dispute the usage of the system
> o Q6 seems to be very difficult and may be likely to draw
> the group back into camps
> o Do not want to rewrite the Board questions – one
> assignment is to consider how to respond to the board.
> This document doesn’t map to those questions – it seems to
> be having an identity crisis.
> o The board did not ask questions, but just stated concerns
> o The council is looking at the small team to see if the
> small team agrees with the board’s concerns
> 4. Discuss proposed timeline:
> * Complete team’s input on questions by 24 February
> * Share any clarifying / follow up questions with ICANN org by
> 25 February
> * Next meeting of small team to review input on questions –
> Wednesday 2 March
> * Provide GNSO Council with initial update on small team
> findings by Friday 4 March
> * GNSO Council – ICANN Board meeting at ICANN73 (Tuesday 8 March)
> * GNSO Council meeting to consider small team findings &
> conversation with the ICANN Board. GNSO Council to indicate
> expectations in relation to potential further work by small team.
> 5. AOB
>
>
> SSAD ODP Council Small Team – Meeting #2 – Wednesday, 16 February 2022
>
> 1. Welcome
>
> o Question: need to be on the same page regarding the
> group’s task – thought the team was expected to consider
> the concerns outlined in the Board’s letter, and with
> those concerns in mind, review the ODA and provide the
> Council with feedback
> o Mission of this small team is to answer to the ICANN board
> letter
> o The questions in the letter were for the previous 27 Jan
> meeting - the Google doc questions focus on the concerns
> that were flagged in the letter.
> o The Council needs to understand, from its perspective, on
> what the implications of the ODA are – needs to decide how
> to engage with the Board in the context of the
> consultation – is there a way to mitigate these concerns
> or other concerns the Council has identified?
> o By the end of this meeting, we will use up significant
> time. If there are answers to the questions, let’s get
> into the google doc and answer them – would the GNSO
> modify the recs before the Board considers? That is an
> interesting question to consider
> o
>
> 2. Review input received on the proposed questions
> (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit
> [docs.google.com]
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit__;!!PtGJab4!qtyHYNsG28Jhc4utlDEU1QhwQzd9Hc7HAiarb2USP-N9lnuu79hLhhGZ0YMt8K2zShcUJClepv8$>)
>
> o First email from Marc centers around Q1-3 – they center
> around cost and benefit. Is there enough info or the right
> info in the ODA for the ICANN Board to make a proper
> informed decision? Q3 asks about benefits not highlighted
> in the ODA – there doesn’t seem to be any benefits
> highlighted in the ODA.
> o In speaking with Goran in a leaders call and asked if the
> public interest test considers costs and benefits, and
> Goran emphatically said no – if there is a benefit, costs
> are not considered
> o This is a question that the Board has before it, and there
> has been no determination on it
> o Need to be careful not to become a subgroup EPDP revision
> test – should focus on answering the Board’s direct questions
>
> 3. Proposed timeline:
> 1. Complete team’s input on questions by 24 February
> 2. Share any clarifying / follow up questions with ICANN org by
> 25 February
> 3. Next meeting of small team to review input on questions #1-6 –
> Wednesday 2 March
> 4. Provide GNSO Council with initial update on small team
> findings by Friday 4 March
> 5. GNSO Council – ICANN Board meeting at ICANN73 (Tuesday 8 March)
> 6. GNSO Council meeting to consider small team findings &
> conversation with the ICANN Board. GNSO Council to indicate
> expectations in relation to potential further work by small team.
> 4. AOB:
>
> 1. Small team input on global demand for SSAD survey question
> (seehttps://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/2022-February/000009.html
> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/2022-February/000009.html>)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam mailing list
> GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220223/eebc0027/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220223/eebc0027/image002-0001.png>
More information about the GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam
mailing list