[IPC-GNSO] FW: [IPC Discussion List] Fwd: [Ext] Re: Attendance, AC recording and AC chat / GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts / Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC

Wed Jan 17 01:01:56 UTC 2018

Resending while our “listserv” is taking a break!

________________________________
[https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/>

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
Washington, DC  20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
brian at winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian at winterfeldt.law>
+1 202 903 4422

From: Brian Winterfeldt
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:01 PM
To: 'listserv at ipconstituency.org' <listserv at ipconstituency.org>; 'haforrestesq at gmail.com' <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; 'icannlists at winston.com' <icannlists at winston.com>
Cc: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran at winterfeldt.law>; Phillip Marano <Phil at Winterfeldt.law>; Griffin Barnett <Griffin at Winterfeldt.law>
Subject: RE: [IPC Discussion List] Fwd: [Ext] Re: Attendance, AC recording and AC chat / GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts / Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC
Importance: High

Dear Heather and all,

With apologies for not weighing in on the call, we support the charter as edited, which narrows the scope to focus on procedure and not policy.  We will want to keep a close watch on the progress of the group, but the edits to the charter appropriately addressed our concerns.

We also support you making the motion as Council Chair, but would ask that you make it clear that you are making the motion as Chair to facilitate progress and compromise.  We think it is important to avoid the optics that the IPC sponsored this motion.

Thank you!
Best,

Brian

________________________________
[https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/>

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Principal
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
Washington, DC  20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>
brian at winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian at winterfeldt.law>
+1 202 903 4422

From: listserv at ipconstituency.simplelists.com<mailto:listserv at ipconstituency.simplelists.com> [mailto:listserv at ipconstituency.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 2:40 AM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>; IPC Discussion List <listserv at ipconstituency.org<mailto:listserv at ipconstituency.org>>
Subject: [IPC Discussion List] Fwd: [Ext] Re: Attendance, AC recording and AC chat / GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts / Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC

Dear colleagues (especially our WHOIS experts),

Status update on WHOIS Conflicts Procedure charter drafting in the attached clean draft, which integrates the comments made by Bradley Silver (which, happily, were in line with RrSG comments).

Two questions:
1. Can IPC support this document?
2. Is IPC opposed to me  being the maker of the motion as Council Chair? (I'm trying to assume a leadership role in bringing everyone together on this one in a reasonably harmonious way, but I know we object in principle to the formation of this new group given our participation in the previous IAG, so I can fully appreciate objections, if there are any.)

Best wishes,

Heather

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
Date: Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: Attendance, AC recording and AC chat / GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts / Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>
Cc: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland at icann.org>>, "kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>" <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com>>
Dear WHOIS Conflicts charter drafting team,

As agreed in our call of 10 January, Marika and I have distilled the points raised by Stephanie, RrSG and IPC into the attached clean document. For easier reading, rather than send a messy redline, I've highlighted in yellow the relevant areas of change which require your focussed review.

There remains one outstanding point, which is staff support. We need to decide whether it should be GNSO Policy or GDD to support this effort.

We are one week away from the January Council document deadline. If we are to make that deadline, we must get the document circulated to SGs/Cs and any tinkering done by next Friday 20th. If we're not at a point of agreement by next Friday, I'll exercise my discretion to hold the motion until February. As we've said on other occasions, and I see no reason to be inconsistent now, this matter is too important to the GNSO community to duke it out in a vote. Let's be sure to reach agreement before it goes to a vote at Council.

With best wishes to all,

Heather

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>> wrote:
All,

Here are the informal notes that staff captured during the meeting as well. There are some AC chat contributions included in the notes, but you may want to review the full chat transcript and/or the recording for better context.

Best,
Steve

ACTION: Marika, Heather to revise draft charter, particularly scope and composition section in line with input received. Try to have draft before end of week.
ACTION: Prepare draft of motion for upcoming meeting

--RrSG - General support for keeping it simple. Composition like a group like the GNSO Review.
Scope:
-- Keep it narrow, on process and procedure, not on policy.
-- Any review of policy should take place in a PDP, though it could identify policy issues to be referred to a PDP for resolution.
-- More support for a light and simple scope
-- Should try to guard against reaching a similar conclusion of IAG (e.g., no solution).
-- User rights - could a user request an exemption for publication of their data in Whois
-- The scope of the this DT is only for the charter, not the substance
-- Review of the procedure - no timeline available now.
-- Can review of the implementation be part of the scope? Currently, focuses on public comment received. Up to DT to determine if it could be included.
Pam Little: "The proposal does not establish expectations for the timeline of a review.The apparent expectation that contracted parties continue to comply with WHOIS requirements while the review is ongoing is doubly problematic when paired with the fact that the Procedure does not provide a timeline by which such review will occur. ICANN’s handling of the Registry Service Evaluation Request Process (RSEP) has been notoriously slow despite a clear timeline set in the consensus policy establishing a reasonable timeline for review to occur. The Procedure should include a similarly expedited timeline for granting an initial waiver of enforcement, given legal compliance risks to contracted parties if conflicts are drawn out."
Pam Little: This was the comment by RySG/RrSG
-- Current scope would pick up Pam's concern, by focusing on public comment.
-- Previous comments may not have identified feasible triggers, so limiting to existing comments could be problematic.
Composition:
-- GNSO Review: Each SG/C provides a primary and alternate member. Observers are welcome (no limit), but concensus limited to members.
-- Preliminary support from Pam.
Pam Little: Although one RrSG member proposed (preferred) CCWG model but that seems to be a minority view
Marika Konings: you may need to specify, like for the SSC charter what that breaks down to so that there is no duplication on the NCPH between Cs & SGs on that side?
-- It may be helpful to be specific about ow allocations are done (SG and/or C). See Option 4.
Pam Little: When we consider composition, I think we should keep in mind that the contracted parties are those who will be directed impacted this so they should not have less reps than other groups.
Marika Konings: appointments per SG could ensure parity, while at the same time allowing SGs on the NCPH to factor in the need for each C to have representation?
Marika Konings: For example, 3 members per SG?
-- Could be "up to" 3 members rather than requiring 3, but it may be good to have a minimum.

From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 2:54 PM
To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland at icann.org>>
Cc: "kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>" <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>, icannlists <icannlists at winston.com<mailto:icannlists at winston.com>>, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, Michele Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>, Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] Re: Attendance, AC recording and AC chat / GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts / Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC

Thanks very much, Julie -

Just a quick note so everyone has a clear view of current status. We were missing Keith, Paul and Michele on the call, but Stephanie, Pam and I forged ahead and commented on the two big issues - scope and composition. Next steps:

  *   Marika and I will work on a next version strawman that captures the RrSG, NCSG and IPC inputs, circulating to the group by close Friday LA time. That then gives us all ONE WEEK to circulate within our respective SGs/Cs in order to edit as needed and be ready for document deadline next Friday.
  *   Marika and staff team to draft motion for inclusion in Council agenda in time for review by the group and document deadline
Sincere thanks to Pam and Stephanie for helping to move this forward today, and as always to staff for their excellent support.

Best wishes,

Heather

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Julie Bisland <julie.bisland at icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,

Please find attached the AC chat and below the AC recording and attendance of the GNSO Council Drafting Team Charter ICANN Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts held on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 at 22:00 UTC.

AC Recording:  https://participate.icann.org/p5ctyusfhk4/<https://participate.icann.org/p5ctyusfhk4/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f6e4081fec6a398057d6d3bf26d71391f96423680d7fab145a0eb9603c4bf486>

Attendance: Heather Forrest, Stephane Perrin, Pam Little

Apology: Michele Neylon

Staff: Marika Konings, Steve Chan, Julie Bisland

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Julie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20180117/0c69bf3f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11124 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20180117/0c69bf3f/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5918 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20180117/0c69bf3f/image003-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5910 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ipc-gnso/attachments/20180117/0c69bf3f/image005-0001.png>