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

 

 

 

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