Thank you sir for sharing these.

I have always loved the way the SSAC's positions are communicated; straight up, no chaser.  

So, this workbook thing. Why would the contracted parties object to its inclusion as a referent source even as they accept it is 'informational'? In parliamentary process the Hansard which records all the talk and ruminations on a piece of legislation is considered critical to interpretation of the legal framework that emerge! 

Finally, NCSG dissenting - on purpose[s]. I would have thought those were consensus bound from the git go! Seem to be an alignment on Recommendations #16 and #17 too, even as the dissenters acknowledge that GDPR - and correlated Data Protection laws - now obtains for natural, not legal persons. 

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

=============================


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:12 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,

as Alan pointed out, the SSAC statement is on:
Comments from other EPDP participants make for interesting reading:
Happy reading,

Olivier
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg