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: 876-818-1799Strategy, 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:

- Consensus calls, SSAC - Bundle 3 <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html>

Comments from other EPDP participants make for interesting reading:

- RySG feedback on 11 Feb Draft of phase 1 report <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001684.html>

- NCSG comments on the final report <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001686.html>

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