Darcy has asked an excellent question. As an outgoing councilor, I guess I can afford to be blunt here. What is going on? I quit the RDS PDP after two years of soul destroying work because it was blindingly clear we were going nowhere, and the Board was already working on a temp spec to override anything we were doing. IS the same thing going to happen with the EPDP? I am deeply concerned about the integrity of the multi-stakeholder process. Sorry for being direct, but time is precious. Stephanie Perrin On 2018-09-19 14:07, Darcy Southwell wrote:
Rafik, as Council liaison to the EPDP, what can you share about the impact the EPDP Team sees here?
Darcy
*From:* Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 8:11 AM *To:* council@gnso.icann.org *Subject:* EPDP & Accreditation/Access Model
The BC/IPC recently sent a letter to ICANN org (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bc-ipc-to-marby-07sep18...) about the accreditation and access model. This letter seems problematic at this stage of the game. We discussed this issue ad nauseam during the EPDP Charter development and the Council has tasked the EPDP with addressing the Annex. To ask ICANN org to circumvent the EPDP undermines the policy development process and seems disingenuous to the Council’s approval of the Charter. In addition, the EDPB’s July 5 letter states responsibility for designing an access model lies with ICANN *_and_* the registries/registrars, not just ICANN as indicated in the BC/IPC letter.
Will our BC and/or IPC councilors please shed some light on this?
Thanks,
Darcy
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council