Michele, I did read Matt's email before putting my support across. I also read Alan's reply to Matt which I suggest you also read. We can agree to disagree on the positions taken and manner in which those positions have been put forward. Regards, Justine ----- On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:32, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Justine
I strongly disagree not only with the position being taken by BC / IPC and supported by ALAC, but even more so by the manner in which it has been put forward.
Please read Matt Serlin’s email ( https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html )which clearly articulates why the IPC / BC position is so offensive due to the way that it has been communicated.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday 18 February 2019 at 08:17 *To: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *ICANN list <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses
Alan,
At this juncture, since a 'majority' of CPWG (and ALAC?) has opted to support the ALAC Statement that was submitted, I would venture that any effort to clarify or explicitly lends to ALAC's mandate ... consumer protection, trust, cybersecurity etc ... should be supported.
Further, I see no inconsistency between the ALAC submitted statement and the amendments submitted by IPC/BC to the EPDP Team Final Report and remain guided by you and Hadia as to the actual details which were discussed by the EPDP and agreed or not agreed vs included in or omitted from the Final Report for whatever reason -- your reply to the "one negative message" refers.
** I noted that IPC/BC did not hesitate to say they "cannot support" the Final Report without the 5 amendments being made --- it will be interesting to monitor how these amendments will be dealt with by the EPDP.*
*In short, yes, I fully and strongly support IPC/BC's suggested amendments.*
Justine Chew -----
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:41, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Thanks Cheryl. If others agree, please speak up QUICKLY. If Internet speed was fast, EPDP speed is even faster and we already have one negative message - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001692.html.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On February 17, 2019 8:47:36 PM EST, Cheryl Langdon-Orr < langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan and Hadia,
Thank you for passing this on, from my purely personal perspective, the IPC/BC proposed text amendments to the Final Draft of the EPDP Phase 1 Report, is that they are indeed, as indicated by you Alan, well worthy of receiving ALAC/At-Large support.
Firstly, they are it seems to me, in keeping with a few concerns and considerations on some matters raised in your discussions with the CPWG, and also reflecting the views and preferences articulated by the majority of active participants in the WG.
They also, in my view, act as enhancements and improvements to the existing Draft Final Text, in the manner in which they seek to ensure greater specificity and clarity about the purpose and expectations of the following Phase 2 work of the EPDP Team, in addition to providing valuable timeline information and guidance to the key actors/stakeholders engaged in and affected by GDPR, in the near and medium term and provide both greater surety and predictability to the Full Consensus outcomes of that work.
I would, therefore, encourage the ALAC and the rest of the CPWG / At-Large Community to support your endorsement of this proposed text as 'friendly amendments' (more than actually) to the Final Report...
[image: Image removed by sender.] <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...>
[image: Image removed by sender.]
*Cheryl Langdon-Orr*
about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr <https://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_me...>
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 10:45, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement?
Alan
From: Margie Milam <margiemilam@fb.com> To: "gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses
Dear Colleagues-
The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...>.
The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support.
We hope to discuss these items with you this week.
All the best,
Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg