Thanks, Janis. Appreciate the clarification. I will not be joining you all in Montreal, but will try to follow remotely, when I can. Thanks again. Amr
On Oct 14, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Janis Karklins <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Amr,
Indeed, I was corrected after sending out my message. I am not well aware of procedures. Sorry for that. We will discuss way forward at ICANN 66. For the time being, we need to concentrate on closing building blocs and paving the way for the release of the Initial report. Best regards JK
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja> wrote:
Hi Janis,
Some thoughts on this:
Doesn’t this effectively mean that recommendations on Priority 2 issues will not be subject to a public comment period? Is this something we would want to do?
Of course, we could initiate a second public comment period for a Draft Final Report, which includes the Priority 2 issues related recommendations, but that will likely defeat the desired outcome of trying to wrap Phase 2 up as efficiently as possible.
Thanks.
Amr
On Oct 12, 2019, at 11:49 PM, J <karklinsj@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your mail and question.
During the ICANN66 part of the last session on Thursday will be devoted to discuss a way forward until the end-Jan f2f meeting and ICANN67. Currently we are working towards objective of submitting the initial report for public comments by early December. After that we will take up all Priority 2 issues aiming at submitting recommendations together with the Final Report. If for any reason we will not meet objective of early December, we will start addressing P2 issues in a run-up to and at the end-Jan f2f meeting. In that case objective will be to publish initial report containing also recommendations on P2 issues. Hope such approach will find support of the Team.
Best regards JK [ ] From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2019 1:45 AM To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] schedule problem: Legal vs. Natural issue
The Phase 1 report said:
“EPDP Team Recommendation #17. 1) The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so. 2) The EPDP Team recommends that as soon as possible ICANN Org undertakes a study, for which the terms of reference are developed in consultation with the community, that considers: * The feasibility and costs including both implementation and potential liability costs of differentiating between legal and natural persons; * Examples of industries or other organizations that have successfully differentiated between legal and natural persons; * Privacy risks to registered name holders of differentiating between legal and natural persons; and * Other potential risks (if any) to registrars and registries of not differentiating. 3) The EPDP Team will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2.”
The homework above looks like a pre-requisite for completing the charter and delivering the Final Report, but AFAIK it is not underway. How are we going to solve this dilemma?
I note that some guidance about the above is contained in the Bird & Bird “legal versus natural” memo delivered at the end of Phase 1.
All best, --Greg