Eberhard,
while I most certainly do not have the time, this could have/should have been put to the members/non members and if there was a volunteer or two, Council could have chosen from them, or not; I also do not agree that this decision (not to participate) is one for Council to make, but for the members.
As I already noted in my email, we were given 8 days to seek for volunteers and make a decision. "A volunteer or two" would not suffice. We would need two members and at least one alternate in case a member steps down. Again, as I explained in my email, anything our appointed members would say, was supposed to be an official position of the ccNSO, i.e. everything would have to be accepted by ccNSO members. Even European ccTLDs have opposing views on the ways the requirements of the GDRP should be implemented! The Council considered the short timeframe for the decision, the efforts required, possible volunteers among Councillors, scope of the ccNSO policy as defined in the Bylaws, priorities, and the need for volunteers in other efforts of high importance for ccTLDs (e.g. IFR). As the result, in order not to delay the work of the EPDP team, the ccNSO Council decided not to appoint members but encourage ccTLDs to participate individually. Kind regards, ]{atrina On 13/08/2018 01:21, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
(I've brought this discussion off the ccNSO Community list, but have left it on the ccNSO council list)
El,
As a follow-on to Katrina's comments, let me say that first of all this is not our concern. If the various houses of the GNSO wish to wage war on themselves over this, then so be it. The US based intellectual property (IP) lawyers and Law Enforcement (LE) are screaming for complete access; the European Regulators are telling them "No Way". The GTLD registries are caught in the middle: contractually obligated to ICANN, yet under (sometimes extreme) pressure from the LE/IP community to ignore these Regulators at great risk to their financial wellbeing due to the potential fines mandated under GDPR.
It was also made clear at some point along the way that the EPDP group was looking for something like 30 hours per week of active participation from members, which in my mind was basically a means to stack it with IP interests from large law firms who could task personnel to this effort. Sorry to be so cynical, but they have a track record...
In my view, the effort of this EPDP will ultimately turn out to be "A bridge too far". And that conclusion is made independent of ICANN's recent failures in the German courts to maintain the old "whois order".
Become an observer if you are interested; it could well be interesting given the linkage between the EPDP's chair and ICANN.
As Katrina stated, the Council considered but rejected becoming an active participant in the GNSO's EPDP. I supported that decision as a Council member, and I continue to support it.
Best Regards /Stephen [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/