Thanks Jeff and Damon. Given the points articulated below, I proposed we defer this vote and discuss next steps at tomorrow’s meeting. Thanks, Greg From: Jeff Neuman via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org; Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Accuracy Vote on AST Recommendations 1 and 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. All, It is not my role as the Liaison to offer any opinion on the motion, so I will not. But I do believe that Damon has a good point. Regardless of whether there is a vote or not, the GAC will need an explanation of why or why not this work is or is not progressing and if it is not moving forward with the Accuracy Scoping Team, what if anything is the GNSO's plans with respect to this issue. And when I say "GNSO's plans" that does not necessarily mean the Council and/or a PDP. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:image001.png@01DAE8E1.B5BE6390] ________________________________ From: Ashcraft, Damon via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 3:19 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] Accuracy Vote on AST Recommendations 1 and 2 Dear Councillors: Susan and I had our IPC membership meeting yesterday and discussed the upcoming vote to formally state that Council does not intend to proceed with the AST recommendations #1 and #2. The IPC’s view is that this vote is premature, for the reasons below, and we’d like to defer this decision. * During the last Council meeting we discussed possible next steps on accuracy. While there were various views expressed, we did not reach a clear agreement on what next steps might be, except with respect to sending a letter to the GAC, and the discussion is to be continued on this week’s Council call. It is therefore proposed in this Motion that Council agrees not to proceed with the AST’s recommendations, but without Council yet having agreed what we might do instead, and we will actually be having that discussion immediately afterwards. It seems far preferable to have a proposed path forward first, before we hold such a vote. * One action that we did reach agreement on was to draft a letter to the GAC, explaining to them some of the challenges of pursuing further work on accuracy, including in particular the challenges identified in the Staff assessment, and clarifying that the Data Processing Specification between the contracted parties and ICANN is not the only hurdle. We don’t believe that that letter has yet been drafted and finalised. * During our meeting at ICANN80 with the GAC, some GAC members made their frustration at the lack of progress on accuracy very apparent and expressed the view that they expect Council to come back to them at ICANN81 having made concrete progress. Irrespective of views on the merits of that frustration, which may differ, it is clear that this issue is firmly on the GAC’s radar and that some GAC members are losing patience. * We are concerned that the proposed vote by Council, unaccompanied by any clarity on what the Council does intend to do instead, will be seen by the GAC and wider community as a decision not to progress work on accuracy, irrespective of what the Motion says. Coupled with the delay on the expectation-setting letter to the GAC, we are concerned that this will be very poorly-received. We believe, therefore, that this vote on the AST recommendations #1 and #2 should be delayed. Ideally, to allow sufficient time for Council to agree on and progress a course of action, we would suggest that the current Motion be amended (if possible, or withdrawn and replaced if not) by one which agrees to a further 6 months deferral on Council’s consideration of the AST’s recommendations (i.e something of similar effect to that agreed in February). The matter could always be brought back before Council sooner, as appropriate. Please let us know if you have any objections. Damon and Susan J. Damon Ashcraft O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://www.swlaw.com/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/snell-&-wilmer> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Phoenix | Portland | Reno | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
