And it seems SSAC also wants to steer aspects of this that I would classify as GNSO policy.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-101-en.pdf

Some of the recommendations sound like PDP scoping, others outside the picket fence, other trying to move policy to contract amendments... 


Rubens



Em 19 de jun de 2018, à(s) 08:23:000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> escreveu:

Ayden
 
I think that’s a very valid question
 
I was working on the assumption that as Council we would be managing the policy development process that the temporary specification spawned. Now it appears that ICANN senior management have started cleaving off sections and putting it somewhere else, though I’m still at a loss to really understand where exactly that “somewhere else” lives.
 
While some parts of the temporary specification are outside the scope of policy, this access model is a fundamental policy issue in my mind.
 
Regards
 
Michele
 
 
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
 
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>
Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>
Date: Tuesday 19 June 2018 at 09:18
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] ICANN Org Proposed Unified Access Model
 
Could this, in any way, have implications for the EPDP?  
 
 
There is no deadline for the submission of feedback, and it does not appear on the public comment page, so I presume it is an informal request for community input.
 
Best wishes, Ayden  
 
 
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council