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
https://www.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.blog/
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