Thanks Flip.
The PPSAI response has not yet been sent. Your suggested edits are noted.
Regards,
Keith
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Flip Petillion
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:17 PM
To: gnso-secs@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] FW: Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
Dear Keith,
Dear all,
I do not know if the letter has already been sent.
If not, please find attached the draft PPSAI letter with suggested edits from the IPC, providing further factual background.
Please let us know should you have any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Flip
Flip Petillion
+32484652653
Attorneys – Advocaten – Avocats
From: councilOn Behalf OfDrazek, Keith via council
Sent: 11 April 2019 16:04:37 (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris
To: marie.pattullo@aim.be;
darcy.southwell@endurance.com
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org;
council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
Hi Marie,
Thanks very much for the clarifying questions.
- Yes, the letter essentially acknowledges the differences of opinion on timing and the role of ICANN Org in managing
implementation work, and defers that decision to ICANN Org.
- The following language in the letter was intended to address the “parsing” point we discussed in Kobe. It does not use
the work “parse” but I think the intention is the same:
“As discussed during the GNSO Council meetings in Kobe, the Council notes that a detailed analysis on elements of the implementation work that are impacted by GDPR and interdependent with the EPDP outcome
would be helpful to the Council and the GNSO community and encourages ICANN org to carry out such analysis as soon as possible.”
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Keith
From: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:43 AM
To: Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell@endurance.com>; Drazek,
Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org;
council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
Many thanks, Keith.
Can I please clarify, does
“... the GNSO Council considers it appropriate to defer the decision on this issue to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT” mean that we’re leaving it to Org and the IRT to decide on whether to start the implementation?
Also – may I ask what happened to the suggestion about parsing – lifted from the Kobe action points, “In relation to unpausing of the PPSAI IRT, Council to consider
whether it would be possible to parse out EPDP-dependent versus non-EPDP dependent items.”?
Thanks!
Marie
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>
On Behalf Of Darcy Southwell
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 1:59 AM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org;
council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Draft GNSO Council Response to ICANN on PPSAI Implementation and IRTP
Thank you, Keith. The RrSG has reviewed the letter and has no additional comments or objections.
Thanks,
Darcy
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:11 AM Drazek, Keith via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Attached is a draft Council response to the 4 March 2019 letter we received from Cyrus concerning PPSAI Implementation and related IRTP issues.
Here’s the link to Cyrus’ letter: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/namazi-to-drazek-et-al-04mar19-en.pdf
The attached draft acknowledges and refers to the discussion we had in Kobe on the topic and recognizes the differing views of Councilors. Thanks to Pam for taking the lead on drafting this. Rafik and I have both reviewed and provided our input.
Please review and advise if you have any comments. I’d like to be able to send this sooner rather than later.
Best,
Keith
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council