Dear Ching,
You are correct – we do not exclude ourselves completely. However,
1) The ICANN Bylaws describe specific reviews and creation of review teams. Individual members are not supposed to join a specific review team. Therefore we cannot encourage individual members to join.
2) Even though the Bylaws briefly mention liaisons to specific review teams their role and the process of their selection is not clear (to me). Our own internal guideline does not define the process for selection of liaisons.
3) It is difficult for me to respond to your comment about exploring how RDAP would create impact on gTLD registry operations. According to the Bylaws the idea of the RDS review is “to assess the effectiveness of the then current gTLD registry directory service and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data”. The way I understand it the review has nothing to do with RDAP. In any case, as we point out in our letter, the scope of the review is not defined.
Kidnest regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ching Chiao
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:20 AM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2
I can accept the current letter given we are not excluding ourselves completely in the review process i.e. at later time we will participate.
From now and then ccNSO could suggest individual members to join, or appoint a temporary liaison, to the Review team. I'd assume that people in the ccTLD community would be interested in exploring how RDAP would create impact on gTLD registry operations and cross-boarder data protection -- and how this would further relate back to ccTLD policy and operations.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
My comment is that, the odd typo aside, this is EXACTLY what we need to be saying.
The GDPR is a bit of a game-changer and is likely to influence data protection regimes well outside the EU as well (places like Canada and the Antipodes spring to mind (we'll leave on one side where the UK will sit) and no one knows exactly where this will take us.
We want to positively engage with ICANN staff, and the g-TLDs as there's a lot of benefits.
But we don't want to waste our time either.
Just right, in my view!
On 24/04/17 14:49, Katrina Sataki wrote:Dear Councillors,
I know you have time until 28 April but I would appreciate your (at least
initial) responses by tomorrow 12 UTC. Tomorrow we (Byron, Demi and I) have
a call with Goran Marby. In case he raises issues around specific reviews,
it would be nice to know if there is a support for the arguments mentioned
in the draft. If you come up with other arguments, I would appreciate if you
could share them as well. where
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 4:09 PM
To: ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2
Dear Councillors,
During our call last week we discussed our participation in the RDS-WHOIS2
specific review. We decided to defer our participation due to the fact that
many things, including the scope, around this review are still unclear. As
agreed, here's a draft letter to the Board.
Please have a look and send your comments by 28 April.
Thank you and have a nice weekend!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
--
Ching Chiao
Founder & CEO
Brandma Internet Group
中域国际集团
+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei