El, By way of my replying, your reply to me has made it to the Council list. One major obstacle to any ccNSO participation was the wording of the request for participation, which (and I believe Katrina touched on this previously) basically stated that whoever did participate from another SO/AC would be considered to be representing the views of that SO/AC. This made it very problematic for ccNSO participation, either by a Council member, but especially so for any member of the ccNSO/ccTLD Community. /Stephen On 8/13/18, 04:46, "Dr Eberhard W Lisse" <el@lisse.na> wrote: Stephen, I would have rather preferred this to remain on the list, and I am not sure I can post to the council list in the first place. Please ensure that it arrives on the Council list if I can't. My views are, while I most certainly do not have the time, this could have/should have been put to the members/non members and if there was a volunteer or two, Council could have chosen from them, or not; I also do not agree that this decision (not to participate) is one for Council to make, but for the members. Hence I would appreciate if Council put to the members whether to participate and if there was some interest ask members/non members for volunteers. greetings, el On 13/08/2018 01:21, Stephen Deerhake wrote: > (I've brought this discussion off the ccNSO Community list, but have > left it on the ccNSO council list) > > El, > > As a follow-on to Katrina's comments, let me say that first of all > this is not our concern. If the various houses of the GNSO wish to > wage war on themselves over this, then so be it. The US based > intellectual property (IP) lawyers and Law Enforcement (LE) are > screaming for complete access; the European Regulators are telling > them "No Way". The GTLD registries are caught in the middle: > contractually obligated to ICANN, yet under (sometimes extreme) > pressure from the LE/IP community to ignore these Regulators at great > risk to their financial wellbeing due to the potential fines mandated > under GDPR. > > It was also made clear at some point along the way that the EPDP group > was looking for something like 30 hours per week of active > participation from members, which in my mind was basically a means to > stack it with IP interests from large law firms who could task > personnel to this effort. Sorry to be so cynical, but they have a > track record... > > In my view, the effort of this EPDP will ultimately turn out to be "A > bridge too far". And that conclusion is made independent of ICANN's > recent failures in the German courts to maintain the old "whois > order". > > Become an observer if you are interested; it could well be interesting > given the linkage between the EPDP's chair and ICANN. > > As Katrina stated, the Council considered but rejected becoming an > active participant in the GNSO's EPDP. I supported that decision as a > Council member, and I continue to support it. > > Best Regards > /Stephen [...] -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/