Dear Peter,
However, we can only suggest this as a way going forward. It is up to the GAC to figure out if they are willing to do this or not. We shouldn’t try to impose this on them.
I absolutely agree with you! We cannot impose anything. This is just a suggestion from our side to add some value to our bi-lateral meetings. Only GAC can see if that works for them or not.
So, currently I see 3 topics that could cover approximative 15mins for a total session time of 45min. How does this sound?
Eh… which three topics do you mean? ☺ Thanks, ]\{atrina From: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 23:28 To: "giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu" <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu>, Peter Vergote <peter.vergote@dnsbelgium.be>, 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] ccNSO-GAC session at ICANN63 Dear Giovanni, Peter, All, It has now been confirmed by the GAC staff that the slot is 45 minutes, not 60 minutes. Peter, how does that affect your plan? As to Giovanni’s proposal, maybe we can come up with a set of questions that GAC reps could answer and then we discuss the results during the meeting? Thank you! Regards, ]{atrina From: Giovanni Seppia <Giovanni.Seppia@eurid.eu> Date: Monday, 10 September 2018 at 23:58 To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv>, 'Peter Vergote' <peter.vergote@dnsbelgium.be>, 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] ccNSO-GAC session at ICANN63 Hi Peter, Thanks for starting this discussion. “So far I got a feeling that we keep repeating same and same again: two letters for ccTLDs, three letters, country names, position of ROs, etc. I understand that not every time we have the same government representatives in the room. However, I’d like to ask the Councillors if they have any ideas how to make this consultation/discussion more productive? ” I tend to agree with Katrina about the aforementioned point. Can’t we ask the GAC to sense their membership temperature about the country and territory names in advance rather than having some GAC representatives speaking up (and most of the times they are the same)? As ICANN is soon launching the next five-years Strategy Plan drafting, it might be nice to ask the GAC to share what they see as priorities for ICANN. Best, Giovanni Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu http://www.eurid.eu Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: 10 September 2018 19:07 To: 'Peter Vergote' <peter.vergote@dnsbelgium.be>; 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] ccNSO-GAC session at ICANN63 Dear Peter, Thank you very much for your work! One thing worries me, though:
Currently, a time slot for one hour has been scheduled. I’ve indicated to my GAC counterpart that this would be ok for us.
According to the latest ccNSO Meeting agenda, we have scheduled 45 minutes. Joke, Alejandra, could you please check this?
Concerning topics, I see one recurring topic we want to consult/discuss with GAC members: country & territory names.
So far I got a feeling that we keep repeating same and same again: two letters for ccTLDs, three letters, country names, position of ROs, etc. I understand that not every time we have the same government representatives in the room. However, I’d like to ask the Councillors if they have any ideas how to make this consultation/discussion more productive?
One topic that might be beneficial for both ccNSO and GAC: privacy/GDPR and more in particular access to non-public Whois data.
There was a request from the representative from India to give information on how EU ccTLDs have implemented GDPR. My understanding is that CENTR might help us here.
ICANN’s temporary specification will cause the need for a model for access to gTLD non-public Whois data. I think that ccNSO members might be interested to be informed by GAC about progress in EU member states on this.
Would be nice if GAC could share this with us.
Please advise if you have other topics in mind for this session so that we can further work on the final agenda.
Iranian representative asked about our position on .ir case in the US Court. This is, of course, a very thin ice if we ever dare to step there. Any ideas on this one? Kind regards, ]{atrina Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. Any processing of personal data via email is done in accordance with our Privacy Policy. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. Other languages: EnglishEstonianItalianMalteseRomanianSwedish CzechSpanishLatvianDutchSlovakGreek DanishFrenchLithuanianPolishSlovenianBulgarian GermanGaelicHungarianPortugueseFinnishCroatian