Dear Pam,

 

Thank you for your input regarding the suggested IPC edits to the PPSAI letter.

 

  1. I agree that the viewpoints of the GAC on the PPSAI implementation are better channeled through the GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique to the ICANN Board.

 

  1. I do not agree with your comment that the PPSAI is one such policy that may have been omitted and will require updates in accordance with recommendation #27.

 

Unlike the other policies mentioned, PPSAI is specifically addressed in recommendation #14 of the Phase 1 Report.

 

In its recent work sheet, the EPDP has already identified the display of P/P providers (in accordance with PPSAI) in public RDDS as an expected deliverable for WT 2 of EPDP phase 2.

Accordingly, I do not believe that PPSAI implementation is meant to be ‘paused’ or ‘delayed’ but rather that it is (expeditiously) implemented concurrently (and in consultation) with phase 2 EPDP work.

 

In any event, the suggested edit only conveys the view of “some Councilors”.

 

Kind regards,

 

Flip

 

 

Flip Petillion

fpetillion@petillion.law

+32484652653

www.petillion.law

 

signature_1911601644

 

  Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats

 

 

 

 

From: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>
Reply-To: Pam Little <pam.little@alibaba-inc.com>
Date: Thursday, 18 April 2019 at 03:22
To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion@petillion.law>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: "mcgradygnso@gmail.com" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

 

Dear Flip,

 

Thank you for taking time to review the draft and for the suggested edits from the IPC.

 

However, I do not agree with some of the proposed-edits and offer my reasoning below:

 

"We also note that in the 14 March 2019 GAC Communique, the GAC advised that ICANN should “[c]onsider re-starting implementation processes for relevant existing policies, such as the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy”.   The GAC further noted that “[t]he implementation of the PPSAI need not be deferred until the completion of the EPDP.” "

Our current practice is to send a GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique to the ICANN Board after each ICANN meeting. Therefore, I think IPC's views on this issue should be channelled through the Council Review, instead of this letter which is a response to the GDD. I will send a separate email to the small drafting team and copy you and Paul shortly.

 

  "Some Councilors also noted the negative impact on ICANN’s reputation and credibility if ICANN is not seen as expeditiously implementing approved multi-stakeholder policies."

 

The GDPR has created complexities and uncertainties which in turn impacted many existing ICANN policies. Thus, a pause or delays of policy implementation may well be not only justified but also necessary. For example, the implementation of Thick WHOIS Transition Policy has been delayed multiple times, see the latest https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#1.c. Furthermore,  the EPDP Team recommended "updates" to a number of existing policies:  

 

EPDP Team Recommendation #27.

The EPDP Team recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as, for example, a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements:

•      Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy

•      Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS

•      Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

•      WHOIS Data Reminder Policy

•      Transfer Policy

•      Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules

•      Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy



I believe PPSAI is one such policy that may have been omitted and will require updates.



Kind regards,

 

Pam

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender:council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>

Sent At:2019 Apr. 18 (Thu.) 00:55

Recipient:fpetillion@petillion.law <fpetillion@petillion.law>; gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>

Cc:mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>

Subject:Re: [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

 

Thanks Flip.

 

The PPSAI response has not yet been sent. Your suggested edits are noted.

 

Regards,

Keith

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Flip Petillion
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:17 PM
To: gnso-secs@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

 

Dear Keith,

Dear all,

 

I do not know if the letter has already been sent.

 

If not, please find attached the draft PPSAI letter with suggested edits from the IPC, providing further factual background.

 

Please let us know should you have any comments or questions.

 

Best regards,

 

Flip

 

 

Flip Petillion

fpetillion@petillion.law

+32484652653

www.petillion.law

 

Petillion_Logo_Zwart_600px

 

  Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats

 

 

From: councilOn Behalf OfDrazek, Keith via council
Sent: 11 April 2019 16:04:37 (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris
To: marie.pattullo@aim.be; darcy.southwell@endurance.com
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

Hi Marie,

 

Thanks very much for the clarifying questions.

 

  1. Yes, the letter essentially acknowledges the differences of opinion on timing and the role of ICANN Org in managing implementation work, and defers that decision to ICANN Org.

 

  1. The following language in the letter was intended to address the “parsing” point we discussed in Kobe. It does not use the work “parse” but I think the intention is the same:

 

“As discussed during the GNSO Council meetings in Kobe, the Council notes that a detailed analysis on elements of the implementation work that are impacted by GDPR and interdependent with the EPDP outcome would be helpful to the Council and the GNSO community and encourages ICANN org to carry out such analysis as soon as possible.”

 

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

 

Best,
Keith

 

From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:43 AM
To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

 

Many thanks, Keith.

 

Can I please clarify, does “... the GNSO Council considers it appropriate to defer the decision on this issue to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT” mean that we’re leaving it to Org and the IRT to decide on whether to start the implementation?

 

Also – may I ask what happened to the suggestion about parsing – lifted from the Kobe action points, “In relation to unpausing of the PPSAI IRT, Council to consider whether it would be possible to parse out EPDP-dependent versus non-EPDP dependent items.”?

 

Thanks!

 

Marie

 

From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 1:59 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP

 

Thank you, Keith.  The RrSG has reviewed the letter and has no additional comments or objections.

 

Thanks,

Darcy

 

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:11 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:

Hi all,

 

Attached is a draft Council response to the 4 March 2019 letter we received from Cyrus concerning PPSAI Implementation and related IRTP issues.

 

Here’s the link to Cyrus’ letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-drazek-et-al-04mar19-en.pdf

 

The attached draft acknowledges and refers to the discussion we had in Kobe on the topic and recognizes the differing views of Councilors.  Thanks to Pam for taking the lead on drafting this. Rafik and I have both reviewed and provided our input.

 

Please review and advise if you have any comments. I’d like to be able to send this sooner rather than later.

 

Best,

Keith

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council