Fwd: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism
Dear Councillors As Katrina informed us almost a couple of weeks ago, here are the requests for clarification from the Board Caucus that is evaluating the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism. On our previous council call I briefly made the following observations to keep in mind: 1. We are talking about ccNSO recommendations: recommendations approved initially by the working group, then the Council and finally by the membership 2. Currently the Council is looking at related matters through the policy gap ad-hoc group 3. We need careful consideration on how we want to handle it To discuss how we want to proceed we could wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC or we could have an extraordinary call the week before, on Tuesday 7.May at 12:00 UTC. Please let me know your thoughts and preference by replying to this email. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina.sataki@board.icann.org> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM Subject: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Cc: <ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>, Patricio Poblete < patricio.poblete@board.icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org> Dear Alejandra, I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional information. As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with three objectives: (i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO Council when needed. (ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the proposed policy. (iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations. Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review mechanism and identify any necessary modifications. The additional information is requested using two types of questions: - Requests for confirmation: The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. - Requests for clarification: The purpose of these requests is to seek further information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from the language of the CCRM Policy. After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize total time). The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into columns as follows: - Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43) - Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report - Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question - Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green) - Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience. Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of implementation feasibility. Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards, Katrina Sataki, On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM
Dear Ale, all, I agree with your recommendation to wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC. Best wishes, On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:23 PM Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council < ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councillors
As Katrina informed us almost a couple of weeks ago, here are the requests for clarification from the Board Caucus that is evaluating the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism.
On our previous council call I briefly made the following observations to keep in mind:
1. We are talking about ccNSO recommendations: recommendations approved initially by the working group, then the Council and finally by the membership 2. Currently the Council is looking at related matters through the policy gap ad-hoc group 3. We need careful consideration on how we want to handle it
To discuss how we want to proceed we could wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC or we could have an extraordinary call the week before, on Tuesday 7.May at 12:00 UTC.
Please let me know your thoughts and preference by replying to this email.
Best regards, Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina.sataki@board.icann.org> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM Subject: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Cc: <ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>, Patricio Poblete < patricio.poblete@board.icann.org>, Correspondence < Correspondence@icann.org>
Dear Alejandra,
I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional information.
As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with three objectives: (i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO Council when needed. (ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the proposed policy. (iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations.
Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review mechanism and identify any necessary modifications. The additional information is requested using two types of questions: - Requests for confirmation: The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. - Requests for clarification: The purpose of these requests is to seek further information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from the language of the CCRM Policy.
After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize total time).
The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into columns as follows: - Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43) - Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report - Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question - Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green) - Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments
Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience. Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of implementation feasibility.
Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kindest regards,
Katrina Sataki, On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Greetings Alejandra. It only took the Board 302 days, but it’s nice to see that they have produced a collection of questions/comments regarding the ccNSO community adopted Review Mechanism policy. Better late than never I suppose… I have to respectfully disagree with Pablo regarding postponing discussion of the Board’s document to our next regular Council meeting. As you know, regular council business at our monthly meetings consumes the entire meeting period. The import of the Board’s response is entirely new territory for the ccNSO, and I firmly believe that their document requires a serious and deep discussion. I thus support your proposal that we have an extraordinary Council call on 7 May to dive into the Board’s document. I have forwarded the Board’s document to the members of the Review Mechanism Working Group to alert them of the Board’s concerns/questions of our policy work product. Best Regards, //Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 14:23 To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Dear Councillors As Katrina informed us almost a couple of weeks ago, here are the requests for clarification from the Board Caucus that is evaluating the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism. On our previous council call I briefly made the following observations to keep in mind: 1. We are talking about ccNSO recommendations: recommendations approved initially by the working group, then the Council and finally by the membership 2. Currently the Council is looking at related matters through the policy gap ad-hoc group 3. We need careful consideration on how we want to handle it To discuss how we want to proceed we could wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC or we could have an extraordinary call the week before, on Tuesday 7.May at 12:00 UTC. Please let me know your thoughts and preference by replying to this email. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina.sataki@board.icann.org<mailto:katrina.sataki@board.icann.org>> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM Subject: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com>> Cc: <ccnsosecretariat@icann.org<mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>>, Patricio Poblete <patricio.poblete@board.icann.org<mailto:patricio.poblete@board.icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org<mailto:Correspondence@icann.org>> Dear Alejandra, I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional information. As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with three objectives: (i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO Council when needed. (ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the proposed policy. (iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations. Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review mechanism and identify any necessary modifications. The additional information is requested using two types of questions: - Requests for confirmation: The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. - Requests for clarification: The purpose of these requests is to seek further information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from the language of the CCRM Policy. After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize total time). The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into columns as follows: - Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43) - Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report - Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question - Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green) - Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience. Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of implementation feasibility. Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards, Katrina Sataki, On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM
Dear all, I prefer to have an extraordinary meeting if the working group has a solid response regarding the requested clarification and confirmation from ICANN, and if the Policy Gap Ad-Hoc Group has other thoughts and countermeasures. Otherwise, the next council meeting can allocate time to discuss it at the original schedule. Regards, ai-chin Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> 於 2024年4月25日 週四 上午2:23寫道：
Dear Councillors
As Katrina informed us almost a couple of weeks ago, here are the requests for clarification from the Board Caucus that is evaluating the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism.
On our previous council call I briefly made the following observations to keep in mind:
1. We are talking about ccNSO recommendations: recommendations approved initially by the working group, then the Council and finally by the membership 2. Currently the Council is looking at related matters through the policy gap ad-hoc group 3. We need careful consideration on how we want to handle it
To discuss how we want to proceed we could wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC or we could have an extraordinary call the week before, on Tuesday 7.May at 12:00 UTC.
Please let me know your thoughts and preference by replying to this email.
Best regards, Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina.sataki@board.icann.org> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM Subject: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Cc: <ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>, Patricio Poblete < patricio.poblete@board.icann.org>, Correspondence < Correspondence@icann.org>
Dear Alejandra,
I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional information.
As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with three objectives: (i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO Council when needed. (ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the proposed policy. (iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations.
Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review mechanism and identify any necessary modifications. The additional information is requested using two types of questions: - Requests for confirmation: The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. - Requests for clarification: The purpose of these requests is to seek further information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from the language of the CCRM Policy.
After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize total time).
The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into columns as follows: - Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43) - Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report - Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question - Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green) - Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments
Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience. Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of implementation feasibility.
Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kindest regards,
Katrina Sataki, On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM
_______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all That’s quite a list of questions, isn’t it? As part of our consideration of this matter I think we need to consider lessons, if there are any, for how we write policy arising from our PDP processes. It may be that there are useful adjustments we can make. It may also be that there is a special detailed focus on this matter by ICANN because it relates to an appeal mechanism, and that generalisations are limited due to that. I think a separate call to discuss this is warranted, and I don’t think that any steps should be taken re any actions or commitments of resources before the Council has had that conversation. Cheers Jordan _______ Jordan Carter Internet Governance and Policy Director From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 4:23 AM To: ccNSO Council <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - [ccnso-council] Fwd: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism Dear Councillors As Katrina informed us almost a couple of weeks ago, here are the requests for clarification from the Board Caucus that is evaluating the ccPDP3 Review Mechanism. On our previous council call I briefly made the following observations to keep in mind: 1. We are talking about ccNSO recommendations: recommendations approved initially by the working group, then the Council and finally by the membership 2. Currently the Council is looking at related matters through the policy gap ad-hoc group 3. We need careful consideration on how we want to handle it To discuss how we want to proceed we could wait until our next scheduled council meeting on 16.May at 21:00 UTC or we could have an extraordinary call the week before, on Tuesday 7.May at 12:00 UTC. Please let me know your thoughts and preference by replying to this email. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrina Sataki <katrina.sataki@board.icann.org<mailto:katrina.sataki@board.icann.org>> Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:58 PM Subject: Requests for clarification/confirmation wrt ccPDP3 Review Mechanism To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com<mailto:alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com>> Cc: <ccnsosecretariat@icann.org<mailto:ccnsosecretariat@icann.org>>, Patricio Poblete <patricio.poblete@board.icann.org<mailto:patricio.poblete@board.icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence@icann.org<mailto:Correspondence@icann.org>> Dear Alejandra, I am writing to inform the ccNSO of the progress made to date regarding the assessment of the feasibility of the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs and to request additional information. As mentioned in my January 2024 report, the Board Caucus was formed in June 2023 with three objectives: (i) To evaluate the proposed policy for a Review Mechanism Pertaining to IANA Naming Function Operator (IFO) decisions that apply to ccTLDs, and provide recommendations to the Board, including in potential dialogue with the ccNSO Council when needed. (ii) To provide strategic advice to ICANN org during the implementation phase of the proposed policy. (iii) To develop a Supplemental Board Statement and engage in subsequent dialogue in the event that the Board does not accept recommendations. Following the closure of Public Comment period and solicitation of GAC advice as mandated by the Bylaws, the Caucus support staff initiated an in-depth analysis of sections 2-6 of the Board report. This analysis served as the initial step in assessing the feasibility of implementation. Its aim was to ensure that the understanding and interpretation of the policy is unambiguous and aligns with the intentions of the ccNSO. As a result of this analysis, forty-three (43) instances were identified where additional information of the ccNSO would be beneficial in assessing the feasibility of implementing the proposed review mechanism and identify any necessary modifications. The additional information is requested using two types of questions: - Requests for confirmation: The purpose of these requests is to seek confirmation from the ccNSO that ICANN’s understanding and/or interpretation of a specific section is correct/ aligns what the ccNSO intended. - Requests for clarification: The purpose of these requests is to seek further information or clarification from the ccNSO on a specific topic that is not clear from the language of the CCRM Policy. After analyzing the CCRM Policy language, we’ve identified a foundational assumption that requires confirmation from the ccNSO: any Review of an IFO Decision under the CCRM Policy is limited to a review of whether the IFO properly followed its process in reaching that decision (a procedural review), and that the substantive, material review of an IFO Decision is not subject to review. Once this foundational element is confirmed, we will evaluate each aspect of the review mechanism to ensure alignment with this principle and determine whether each proposed step advances the objectives of the CCRM (low cost, fast, minimize total time). The questions that have been compiled in the attached document, are organized into columns as follows: - Column A: Comment Number (1 through 43) - Column B: Relevant section in the Board Report - Column C: Relevant text from the Board Report to provide context for the question - Column D: Request for clarification (highlighted in yellow) or request for confirmation of interpretation (highlight in green) - Column E: Open space for ccNSO comments Given the breadth of the inquiry, we understand that the ccNSO may require time to respond fully. However, we would appreciate your responses at your earliest convenience. Once we receive your responses, the Caucus support staff will continue the assessment of implementation feasibility. Should the ccNSO have any questions on this matter in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards, Katrina Sataki, On behalf of the Board Caucus ccPDP3 RM
participants (5)
-
ai-chin Lu -
Alejandra Reynoso Barral -
Jordan Carter -
Pablo Rodriguez -
Stephen Deerhake ＠ ASNIC