Re: AI 11.7 - Queries Regarding IDN EPDP
Dear Councilors, During the last Council meeting on 08 August, the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team requested feedback and guidance from the Council by 19 August re: IDNs request to implement specific recommendations related to IDN table harmonization in advance of the Council vote, per Action Item 11.7 - Queries regarding IDN EPDP. Here is a link to Manju's request: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/A5XCOJLEXNC... With no feedback so far, the Leadership is taking this as a signal that the EPDP-IDNs Team has the approval from the Council to begin implementing the noted recommendations, even though the Council has not yet voted on the report. If agreed, Manju Chen, as the Council liaison to the Team, will communicate this to the EPDP-IDNs Team unless we hear an objection by Monday, 26 August 21:00 UTC. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Greg
Hi Councilors, Greg, Manju, Reading this request again immediately after re-reading the letter we plan to send to the Board on Urgent Requests for the disclosure or registrants data, I am reminded of the fact that both are unprecedented. Given that after the GNSO Council votes positively on a Recommendation, the Board still needs to adopt it, is the IDN EPDP leadership also consulting with the Board on this matter to avoid an even further unprecedented situation where a non-adopted Recommendation is already implemented? Secondly, considering the implications of this, which is that the council's acceptance for this 'implementation' before a vote means a commitment to vote positively on this recommendation once the stable Recommendation is sent to council, I think this implication deserves to be explicitly called out so that all councillors are aware. Finally, @陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> looking at Samad's request to the IDN EPDP leadership, it appears as if the 'implementation, we are talking about here is only the announcement of the panel for harmonizing the IDN tables. Is my understanding correct? Here is an excerpt from Samad's request to the IDN EPDP "*As ICANN is launching the RSP program in November 2024, we would like to get the IDN table harmonization data in place, ready for implementation when the relevant recommendations are considered (by GNSO and then by the ICANN Board). So, we were planning to announce a panel for harmonizing IDN tables immediately, based on the relevant IDN EPDP Phase 2 recommendations, after the IDN EPDP team preliminarily agrees on the recommendations. This allows data to be prepared in parallel now, for later implementation.*" Emphasis added. Warmly, Tomslin On Fri, 23 Aug 2024, 03:41 DiBiase, Gregory via council, <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
During the last Council meeting on 08 August, the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team requested feedback and guidance from the Council by 19 August re: IDNs request to implement specific recommendations related to IDN table harmonization in advance of the Council vote, per Action Item 11.7 - Queries regarding IDN EPDP. Here is a link to Manju’s request: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/A5XCOJLEXNC...
With no feedback so far, the Leadership is taking this as a signal that the EPDP-IDNs Team has the approval from the Council to begin implementing the noted recommendations, even though the Council has not yet voted on the report. If agreed, Manju Chen, as the Council liaison to the Team, will communicate this to the EPDP-IDNs Team unless we hear an objection by Monday, 26 August 21:00 UTC.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Greg
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Greg, Manju, and other Councillors: I do not have a problem with stepping out of the prescribed procedure and considering a single policy recommendation ahead of the rest if that is the necessary and sufficient step to keep the TLD round timetable intact. I understand we don’t have time for an extended discussion on this but it would be helpful to me if we could get answers to these questions (from ICANN, I think). 1. Is implementation detail of this recommendation really necessary to launch the RSP pre-approval program? The question is: why do we need to know the exact harmonisation rules & implementation model before launching the RSP program? Why cannot the RSP criteria be general and demonstrate an ability to adapt? My understanding of RSP pre-approval criteria is that the RSP demonstrates technical and operational wherewithal to implement a number of services and commits to implement the reigning policy of the time. The IDN PDP will not be the final word on the technical implementation of IDNs, variants, or harmonisation rules. There will be changes in the future and RSPs will have to adjust. 2. If we undertake this effort, will it be sufficient to achieve the desired outcome? If we approve the policy recommendation, can Board policy approval, implementation work, public comment processes, and final Board implementation approval occur before November? The question is, what if that timeline is not met? Cannot the RSP program be launched with the more general criteria described in the question above? 3. Finally, policy recommendations are often inter-related. Can we be assured that the harmonisation recommendation will remain unchanged as the rest of the policy discussion occurs? (I think we can be assured but we should check.) I hope these questions are clear and contribute to our consideration. Best regards, Kurt On 23 Aug 2024, at 3:41 am, DiBiase, Gregory via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, During the last Council meeting on 08 August, the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team requested feedback and guidance from the Council by 19 August re: IDNs request to implement specific recommendations related to IDN table harmonization in advance of the Council vote, per Action Item 11.7 - Queries regarding IDN EPDP. Here is a link to Manju’s request: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/A5XCOJLEXNC... With no feedback so far, the Leadership is taking this as a signal that the EPDP-IDNs Team has the approval from the Council to begin implementing the noted recommendations, even though the Council has not yet voted on the report. If agreed, Manju Chen, as the Council liaison to the Team, will communicate this to the EPDP-IDNs Team unless we hear an objection by Monday, 26 August 21:00 UTC. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Greg _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Councilors, Thank you for all your questions and concerns regarding this issue and taking ICANN org’s request into consideration by exploring ways to expedite the process for EPDP-IDNs. Recognizing the Councilors’ concerns that derive from the fact that the corresponding policy recommendations are not yet considered by the GNSO and the ICANN Board, ICANN org has reconsidered and withdrawn the request to find a solution that works within the existing framework. Here is the rescinded request from ICANN org: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org/thread/... Once again, thank you for your consideration of this matter. Best, Manju On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 8:34 AM kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Greg, Manju, and other Councillors:
I do not have a problem with stepping out of the prescribed procedure and considering a single policy recommendation ahead of the rest if that is the necessary and sufficient step to keep the TLD round timetable intact.
I understand we don’t have time for an extended discussion on this but it would be helpful to me if we could get answers to these questions (from ICANN, I think).
1. Is implementation detail of this recommendation really* necessary* to launch the RSP pre-approval program? The question is: why do we need to know the exact harmonisation rules & implementation model *before* launching the RSP program? Why cannot the RSP criteria be general and demonstrate an ability to adapt? My understanding of RSP pre-approval criteria is that the RSP demonstrates technical and operational wherewithal to implement a number of services and commits to implement the reigning policy of the time. The IDN PDP will not be the final word on the technical implementation of IDNs, variants, or harmonisation rules. There will be changes in the future and RSPs will have to adjust.
2. If we undertake this effort, will it be *sufficient* to achieve the desired outcome? If we approve the policy recommendation, can Board policy approval, implementation work, public comment processes, and final Board implementation approval occur before November? The question is, what if that timeline is not met? Cannot the RSP program be launched with the more general criteria described in the question above?
3. Finally, policy recommendations are often inter-related. Can we be assured that the harmonisation recommendation will remain unchanged as the rest of the policy discussion occurs? (I think we can be assured but we should check.)
I hope these questions are clear and contribute to our consideration.
Best regards,
Kurt
On 23 Aug 2024, at 3:41 am, DiBiase, Gregory via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors, During the last Council meeting on 08 August, the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team requested feedback and guidance from the Council by 19 August re: IDNs request to implement specific recommendations related to IDN table harmonization in advance of the Council vote, per Action Item 11.7 - Queries regarding IDN EPDP. Here is a link to Manju’s request: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/A5XCOJLEXNC...
With no feedback so far, the Leadership is taking this as a signal that the EPDP-IDNs Team has the approval from the Council to begin implementing the noted recommendations, even though the Council has not yet voted on the report. If agreed, Manju Chen, as the Council liaison to the Team, will communicate this to the EPDP-IDNs Team unless we hear an objection by Monday, 26 August 21:00 UTC.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Greg
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Manju, Thanks for the update. Warmly, Tomslin On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, 15:03 陳曼茹 Manju Chen via council, <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Councilors,
Thank you for all your questions and concerns regarding this issue and taking ICANN org’s request into consideration by exploring ways to expedite the process for EPDP-IDNs.
Recognizing the Councilors’ concerns that derive from the fact that the corresponding policy recommendations are not yet considered by the GNSO and the ICANN Board, ICANN org has reconsidered and withdrawn the request to find a solution that works within the existing framework.
Here is the rescinded request from ICANN org: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org/thread/...
Once again, thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Best, Manju
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 8:34 AM kurt kjpritz.com <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Hi Greg, Manju, and other Councillors:
I do not have a problem with stepping out of the prescribed procedure and considering a single policy recommendation ahead of the rest if that is the necessary and sufficient step to keep the TLD round timetable intact.
I understand we don’t have time for an extended discussion on this but it would be helpful to me if we could get answers to these questions (from ICANN, I think).
1. Is implementation detail of this recommendation really* necessary* to launch the RSP pre-approval program? The question is: why do we need to know the exact harmonisation rules & implementation model *before* launching the RSP program? Why cannot the RSP criteria be general and demonstrate an ability to adapt? My understanding of RSP pre-approval criteria is that the RSP demonstrates technical and operational wherewithal to implement a number of services and commits to implement the reigning policy of the time. The IDN PDP will not be the final word on the technical implementation of IDNs, variants, or harmonisation rules. There will be changes in the future and RSPs will have to adjust.
2. If we undertake this effort, will it be *sufficient* to achieve the desired outcome? If we approve the policy recommendation, can Board policy approval, implementation work, public comment processes, and final Board implementation approval occur before November? The question is, what if that timeline is not met? Cannot the RSP program be launched with the more general criteria described in the question above?
3. Finally, policy recommendations are often inter-related. Can we be assured that the harmonisation recommendation will remain unchanged as the rest of the policy discussion occurs? (I think we can be assured but we should check.)
I hope these questions are clear and contribute to our consideration.
Best regards,
Kurt
On 23 Aug 2024, at 3:41 am, DiBiase, Gregory via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors, During the last Council meeting on 08 August, the EPDP-IDNs Leadership Team requested feedback and guidance from the Council by 19 August re: IDNs request to implement specific recommendations related to IDN table harmonization in advance of the Council vote, per Action Item 11.7 - Queries regarding IDN EPDP. Here is a link to Manju’s request: https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/A5XCOJLEXNC...
With no feedback so far, the Leadership is taking this as a signal that the EPDP-IDNs Team has the approval from the Council to begin implementing the noted recommendations, even though the Council has not yet voted on the report. If agreed, Manju Chen, as the Council liaison to the Team, will communicate this to the EPDP-IDNs Team unless we hear an objection by Monday, 26 August 21:00 UTC.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Greg
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
DiBiase, Gregory -
kurt kjpritz.com -
Tomslin Samme-Nlar -
陳曼茹 Manju Chen