Dear Keith, Pam, and Rafik, Thank you for preparing these letters. I have reviewed both today and support the submission of the letter to the GAC on Curative Rights Mechanisms. However I do have concerns regarding the proposed response to the Board vis-a-vis the status of the EPDP Team. While I appreciate the diplomacy in the letter and do in principle agree with the response because it seeks to maintain the GNSO’s autonomy and the proposal of a 'back-up plan' could be seen to undermine the work of the EPDP Team, I fear we could be in danger of overstating the level of progress that the EPDP Team has made. I believe the Board’s concerns that the EPDP Team may be unable to meet its final report deadline are justified. As was flagged in this [Contracted Parties House comment dated 21 December 2018](https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102139719/Joint%20CPH%20Com...), the recommendations published in the EPDP Team report appeared out of thin air and were drafted entirely by ICANN staff. To present them as some kind of EPDP Team conclusion in the Initial Report was, at best, confusing, if not deceiving. When we initiated the EPDP, given its expedited nature it was understood that some deviations would need to be made from the GNSO’s usual working group practices. I understood the need to have a shortened comment period for public input, for instance. But there have been radical attempts made to change how we operate, and many of these changes have been made without input from the EPDP Team (aside from the Chair) or the GNSO Council. Remember how around Panama it was not even certain that the EPDP calls would be transcribed. One of these changes has been the decision to deviate from the usual public comment process, where one submits a letter on letterhead, and to turn to a flawed Google Form to collect input. This form had arbitrary character limits, did not permit for comments to be formatted (such as to insert a footnote to substantiate a claim), and allowed anyone to submit a comment under any name or email address, as there was no validation of credentials, like occurs when one submits a comment through the archived mailing lists that have historically been created for ICANN public comments. Google Forms are also inaccessible in many parts of the world, such as China, limiting participation. The decision to use this flawed tool was made by ICANN staff and the EDPD leadership team over the protests of members of the EPDP Team. I am afraid that I do not find the progress reports that the Council liaison provides us with on an ongoing basis to be helpful. There is no implied criticism here of the liasion, just of the progress reports. Perhaps it is because I am a member of the EPDP Team but I rarely can reconcile the updates with the calls that I have dialled into. As I have said before, if there is a need for a newsletter for external audiences that paints an overly rosy picture of the situation, that can exist. But the Council needs to be provided with an honest assessment of where the EPDP Team is at. Given the recommendations in the Initial Report, and the lack of consensus there, I simply do not see how the EPDP Team can reach consensus on many of the issues in the one month that we have left to produce a Final Report. The Final Report is due in February. My concern, and I do not want this to happen, is that a Final Report will be authored by ICANN staff much like the Initial Report did — appearing out of thin air, presenting conclusions that have not really been reached. I suppose what I'm getting at is, thinking about a 'Plan B' isn't a bad idea. Kind regards, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, 27 December 2018 03:15, Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
As we wrap up 2018, I have attached two letters for your review:
- Draft GNSO Council response to the GAC’s Barcelona letter on IGO-INGO CRP. - Draft GNSO Council response to Cherine’s 14 November letter on the EPDP WG and a potential “Plan B.”
Pam, Rafik and I have coordinated together and with Staff on developing these responses. Please review and let us know if you have any concerns. We will target delivery of these letters during the first week in January.
Thanks, and I wish you all a very happy New Year!
Best,
Keith