Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
I really like their comment on rec 5,7 and 10,11 and believe it resonates with ours as well. I hope that the ePDP would reconsider her position, it's amazing that this isn't obvious to other ePDP stakeholders (especially the NCSG) Thanks for sharing. Cheers! Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 07:45 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg wrote:
One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field
Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Seun I don't agree with that, it is a misunderstanding from the GAC side. Where does it ever say in the report that the organization field is optional for the registrars to provide all what the report talks about is the phase in period and the publication and consent. Unlike the tech contact field which is optional for the registrars to provide Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Page 7 - footnote says "for those data elements marked as "optional" these are optional for the RNH to provide The Technical contact is addressed separately on page 8 where it says that it is optional for the registrar to provide that is the organization field is required to be offered by the registrars the problem with the recommendation is the phase in period that has no certain date Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Hi Seun, First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants, well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg wrote:
Hi Seun,
First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants,
SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional. Enjoy the event and regards to everyone. Regards well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide
to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that.
Hadia
________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Hello Haidia,
I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field
Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto: AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
?Hi Seun GAC modified their statement in this regard. It was a mistake. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 14:57 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Hi Seun, First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants, SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional. Enjoy the event and regards to everyone. Regards well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov><mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
Hello Hadia, Let's just agree to disagree on whether there was a mistake in the previous text; the present and previous text doesn't change what they intend to communicate, but it's good to know that the new text addresses your concern. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 19:15 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg wrote:
?Hi Seun
GAC modified their statement in this regard. It was a mistake.
Hadia
________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 14:57 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Hi Seun,
First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants,
SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional.
Enjoy the event and regards to everyone.
Regards
well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that.
Hadia
________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Hello Haidia,
I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi < Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto: Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field
Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org><mailto: cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto: AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov><mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto: AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org <mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org<mailto: CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
The GAC, SSAC, IP, BC and the rest of the stakeholders have all worked to make this succeed and I believe that although we all compromised we still have a report that is in good shape and which we certainly can build on. BestHadia On Thursday, February 21, 2019, 12:13:47 AM GMT+4, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote: Hello Hadia, Let's just agree to disagree on whether there was a mistake in the previous text; the present and previous text doesn't change what they intend to communicate, but it's good to know that the new text addresses your concern. Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 19:15 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg wrote: ?Hi Seun GAC modified their statement in this regard. It was a mistake. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 14:57 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Hi Seun, First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants, SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional. Enjoy the event and regards to everyone. Regards well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Hello Haidia, I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.
From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> wrote: One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field Hadia ________________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44 To: CPWG Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Those following the EPDP will find this interesting. Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov><mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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
Indeed - very interesting. (particularly on technical contact, city and organization). Holly
On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman <epdp-draft final-report-gac-Input-19feb19-final.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
The organization field is not optional for the registrars to provide it is required for the registrars to provide and it is optional for the registrants to fill in. The organization field can be published if the registrant consents to that otherwise it is either redacted or deleted. However there is a phase in period for the registrars with no certain Hadia ________________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:28 To: Alan Greenberg Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report Indeed - very interesting. (particularly on technical contact, city and organization). Holly
On Feb 20, 2019, at 5:44 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
Alan
From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
Dear Kurt,
Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
Thanks kindly,
Ashley Heineman <epdp-draft final-report-gac-Input-19feb19-final.docx>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Hadia El Miniawi -
Holly Raiche -
Seun Ojedeji