Thanks, Paul, not sure what happened there but hopefully the attached version will be easier to read. I am still having issues in getting the footnotes to outline properly, but at least this should be readable. I did go ahead and updated the heading so it reads GNSO Council review. Other edits / comments will be addressed by the drafting team. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 23:46 To: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Thanks Martin. Staff, the formatting is off. Can you please send around a cleaned up version for review? Secondly, it is mislabeled as “GNSO Review of …”. It should be “GNSO Council Review of…” because the Council is not, of course, the GNSO itself. Thanks much! Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:16 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Hello all, Hereby I send the draft version of the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique for your consideration. Thanks to Staff, Johan and Michele for working on it. Best, Martín ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

Thanks Marika, Martin and all who drafted this. Paul’s phrasing seems more logical to me too. Like the IGO-INGO, I suspect this EPDP part will have to be slightly tweaked after Thursday’s vote - hopefully (for the moment the text seems to be saying the EPDP team is currently working while its own charter is also being defined :s ) Regards, Philippe From: council [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 1:13 PM To: Marika Konings; Martin Pablo Silva Valent; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Thanks Marika. Thank you to the drafting team. Overall, this looks good. I propose I tweak: Replace: Yes, the EPDP is currently active working on reviewing the Temporary Specification to produce GDPR compliance policy with the WHOIS. With Yes, the EPDP is currently active working on reviewing the Temporary Specification to produce a WHOIS policy that is compliant with the GDPR. I think it makes it more clear that ePDP work is not to develop a GDPR compliance policy, but rather to develop WHOIS policy that is compliant with GDPR. Best, Paul From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 5:28 AM To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com>; Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Thanks, Paul, not sure what happened there but hopefully the attached version will be easier to read. I am still having issues in getting the footnotes to outline properly, but at least this should be readable. I did go ahead and updated the heading so it reads GNSO Council review. Other edits / comments will be addressed by the drafting team. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 23:46 To: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Thanks Martin. Staff, the formatting is off. Can you please send around a cleaned up version for review? Secondly, it is mislabeled as “GNSO Review of …”. It should be “GNSO Council Review of…” because the Council is not, of course, the GNSO itself. Thanks much! Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 12:16 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique Hello all, Hereby I send the draft version of the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique for your consideration. Thanks to Staff, Johan and Michele for working on it. Best, Martín ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

Hi, Rafik, The response to the GAC communiqué is not on the agenda as an independent point - I guess we just note it under AOB. We do need to get it to the board before they meet with the GAC, so I guess we have to circulate the final version by email one more time, and see if anyone has objections. Julf On 18-07-18 00:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the draft. I think the paragraph on IGO-INGO access to curative rights should be updated since we already received the final report and we have in fact a motion tabled fof thursday meeting. I assume we can amend that section after the call and the depending on the outcome of the related agenda item.

Best,

Rafik 

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 2:16 AM Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com <mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hello all, Hereby I send the draft version of the *GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communique* for your consideration. Thanks to Staff, Johan and Michele for working on it.

Best, Martín

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

Hi, Rafik, My apologies for being unclear.

I am not sure to understand the point you are making here. I was not commenting if the response to gac communique is in agenda or not. Of course, it can be added under AOB.

I guess my point is that as it is under AOB, I don't think we can formally approve the draft anyway on Thursday.

My understanding is that the board-gac call is scheduled for the 27th July. I was only suggesting that IGO-INGO curative part should be amended because council already received the report (the current response only mention that council will receive it in July) and we may need more info　in the new version to the letter since IGO-INGO topic is an agenda item for tomorrow call. 

Indeed. So I guess we have to approve the final version by email after Thursday? Julf