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
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. 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
Sorry for late reply . I am more in favor of participating in the RDS-WHOIS2 and help define the undefined scope. I am little concern if ccNSO got left out of the process now and it would be challenging to catch up after May 2018 (date that com/net transferring into THICK). We may also suggest ccNSO member to join as individual participant. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> 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.
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
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
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
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 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto: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 www.brandma.com <http://www.brandma.com> +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
Thank you Katrina for the explanation and guidance. I understand better -- the bylaws regarding the composition of the review team. I should refer specifically on our (or individual ccTLD manager) participation, at this stage, as observers where ICANN does not set a limit. Also, the bylaw says "(C)If any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee has not nominated at least three prospective review team members, the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall be responsible for the determination of whether all 21 SO/AC member seats shall be filled and, if so, how the seats should be allocated from among those nominated." This is where we will need to ensure our future participation. I am assuming this has been covered and we have a plan. For 3) -- let's discuss separately as this is about the context of the review as this needs to be further defined. My rough understanding is that RDAP could be one of the main areas of review but maybe I did not get the points completely .... Best regards, Ching On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
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
www.brandma.com
+886.918.211372 <+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032 <+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050 <(908)%20499-0050>
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
-- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
Also, the bylaw says "(C)If any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee has not nominated at least three prospective review team members, the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall be responsible for the determination of whether all 21 SO/AC member seats shall be filled and, if so, how the seats should be allocated from among those nominated." This is where we will need to ensure our future participation. I am assuming this has been covered and we have a plan.
This is a fair point – if SO/AC Chairs decide to fill in all the three slots ‘reserved’ for the ccNSO, our future participation will not be possible. However, it may be better not to participare than to nominate people with the wrong skill-set and for wrong reasons (e.g., only to meet the deadline, which has passed long ago anyway – according to the Bylaws this review team had to convene before 31 October 2016). Review teams are allowed to invite experts to provide the necessary expertese. Kind regards, ]{atrina On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv> > wrote: 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> [mailto: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 <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net> > Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto: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 www.brandma.com <http://www.brandma.com> +886.918.211372 <tel:+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032 <tel:+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050 <tel:(908)%20499-0050> Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei -- Ching Chiao Founder & CEO Brandma Internet Group 中域国际集团 www.brandma.com <http://www.brandma.com> +886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050 Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
Katrina, I agree also. Thanks. - kind regards, - Young-eum Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
Also, the bylaw says "(C)If any Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee has not nominated at least three prospective review team members, the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees shall be responsible for the determination of whether all 21 SO /AC member seats shall be filled and, if so, how the seats should be allocated from among those nominated." This is where we will need to ensure our future participation. I am assuming this has been covered and we have a plan.
This is a fair point – if SO/AC Chairs decide to fill in all the three slots ‘reserved’ for the ccNSO, our future participation will not be possible. However, it may be better not to participare than to nominate people with the wrong skill-set and for wrong reasons (e.g., only to meet the deadline, which has passed long ago anyway – according to the Bylaws this review team had to convene before 31 October 2016). Review teams are allowed to invite experts to provide the necessary expertese.
Kind regards,
]{atrina
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
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
www.brandma.com
+886.918.211372 <+886%20918%20211%20372> || +86.135.2018.7032 <+86%20135%202018%207032> || +1.908.4990050 <(908)%20499-0050>
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
--
Ching Chiao
Founder & CEO
Brandma Internet Group
中域国际集团
www.brandma.com
+886.918.211372 || +86.135.2018.7032 || +1.908.4990050
Beijing . Chengdu . Hangzhou . Hong Kong . Shenzhen. Taipei
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
Well done, Katrina. best demi On 24/04/2017 10:49, 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.
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
Katrina. This is fine as is. Best, /Stephen From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:50 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2 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. Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Dear Katrina, I agree with the letter. Regards Margarita Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM - UAI Legal and Business Manager NIC Chile - Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences University of Chile www.nic.cl Tel: +56229407734 El 24-04-17 a las 10:49, Katrina Sataki escribió:
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.
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
Katrina, Fully agree with the content of the letter. Language suggestions: - First sentence “caused by the Board” seems a bit odd, mabe replace by “initiated by the Board”? - Endoresment -> endorsement - Two concurrent processes -> I would add the exact reference to the other process in the text block behind title Best, Peter Peter Vergote Legal & Corp. Affairs Manager +32 16 29 89 28 +32 474 790096 www.dnsbelgium.be<http://www.dnsbelgium.be/> [ns_punt_belgium_rgb] Van: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> namens Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Datum: maandag 24 april 2017 15:49 Aan: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Onderwerp: [ccnso-council] FW: PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2 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. 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
Peter, Thanks a lot for your comments!
- First sentence ³caused by the Board² seems a bit odd, mabe replace by ³initiated by the Board²?
Well, that¹s the wording they use in the Bylaws
- Endoresment -> endorsement
Yup, thanks!
- Two concurrent processes -> I would add the exact reference to the other process in the text block behind title
Wanted to keep it as short and simple as possible, but technically it is possible to add footnotes Regards, ]{atrina Van: <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> namens Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Datum: maandag 24 april 2017 15:49 Aan: "ccnso-council@icann.org" <ccnso-council@icann.org> Onderwerp: [ccnso-council] FW: PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2 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. 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, here¹s 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
Dear Katrina, I agree with the letter. Thank you! Christelle Vaval cs logoCabinet Salès 62, rue Geffrard (angle rue Chavannes) HT 6140, Pétion-Ville, Haiti Tél: (509) 2815-1500 Fax: (509) 2256-5107 Email: <mailto:cvaval@cabinetsales.com> cvaval@cabinetsales.com Pensez-y avant dimprimer. | Think before printing. AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ - Ce message est pour l'usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) mentionné(s) ci-dessus. Il peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, propriétaire, confidentielle et/ou dispensée de divulgation par la loi. Si vous n'êtes pas un destinataire nommé ou si vous l'avez reçu par erreur, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur et l'effacer sans le copier ni le divulguer à quiconque, ni n'en faire aucun usage. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This communication is for the exclusive use of the above-named recipient(s). It may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient or have received it in error, immediately notify the sender and delete it without copying it, disclosing it to anyone or making any use of it. AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD - Este mensaje es para el uso exclusivo del (de los) destinatario(s) indicados más arriba y puede tener información privilegiada, propietaria, confidencial y/o legalmente no divulgable. Si usted no es un destinatario de este mensaje o lo recibe por error, se le pide avisar inmediatamente al remitente y eliminar el mensaje sin copiarlo, divulgarlo o hacer cualquier otro uso del mismo. From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Katrina Sataki Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:50 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccnso-council] FW: PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2 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. 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, heres 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
Hi Katrina I also support the letter. Thanks Debbie
On 25/04/2017, at 01:49, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> 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.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: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 <mailto: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
<RDS_to_the_Board_draft.docx><Untitled attachment 00705.txt>_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council>
(re-sending to the correct original email from Katrina) Dear Katrina, Thanks for this. I support the content of the letter in general. If I may, I'd like to cast the following comment. The current draft goes : ... that scope of the effort determines the skills and expertic[s]e needed and, even more importantly, the expected time and other commitments of the volunteers/members. I think we should not express here that time and other commitments are more important than skills and expertise. So, I'd like to propose replacing "even more importantly" to "at the same level of importance", Hiro On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:08:36 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
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
Dear Hiro, Thank you! Agree! Noted! Regards, ]{atrina -----Original Message----- From: hotta@jprs.co.jp [mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp] Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:12 AM To: Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] PLEASE COMMENT: ccNSO in RDS-WHOIS2 (re-sending to the correct original email from Katrina) Dear Katrina, Thanks for this. I support the content of the letter in general. If I may, I'd like to cast the following comment. The current draft goes : ... that scope of the effort determines the skills and expertic[s]e needed and, even more importantly, the expected time and other commitments of the volunteers/members. I think we should not express here that time and other commitments are more important than skills and expertise. So, I'd like to propose replacing "even more importantly" to "at the same level of importance", Hiro On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:08:36 +0300 "Katrina Sataki" <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
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
Dear Katrina Sorry for the late reply. I'm in favor of this letter. Best regards, Alejandra *Registro de Dominios .gt* -- Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. 18 Ave. 11-95. Z. 15. V.H. III. Edificio *J*. Oficina *204*. *Tels:* *+502.23688564* y *+502.23688565* On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> wrote:
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
participants (12)
-
Alejandra Reynoso -
Ching Chiao -
Christelle Vaval -
Debbie Monahan -
Demi Getschko -
HiroHOTTA -
Katrina Sataki -
Margarita Valdés -
Nigel Roberts -
Peter Vergote -
Stephen Deerhake -
Young-eum Lee