Gabe, thanks for asking.  Lisa, thanks for responding.

Attached are the slides from the Enhancing Cybersecurity Mitigation Efforts session.  On quick look, it seems the results of various attempts to use the RDRS were generally unsuccessful.  The concluding statement was

In recent times, criminals tend to commit crime across boarder [sic], we need to acknowledge the trend and properly respond by collaborating with international partners.

Steve


On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:56 AM Lisa Carter via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Gabe,

 

The additional feedback came from the  session on Enhancing Cybersecurity Mitigation Efforts at the TWNIC Engagement Forum on 24 April 2024.  The slides and agenda are on the website. ChengHsien Hu, Vinscent Senior Investigator Criminal Investigation Bureau led that discussion.

 

Best,

 

Lisa Carter

Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives

ICANN

 

signature_816670613

 

 

From: Gabriel Andrews via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Reply-To: Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews@fbi.gov>
Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 at 12:34 PM
To: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question

 

Noting that some of the feedback appears to have arisen from my LE counterparts elsewhere in the globe, can anyone point me to who/where the feedback was obtained from, such that I might take action to speak directly?

 

Separately – I confess I’m on split minds as to closing the door to such additional feedback from unexpected contributors.  I know how hard it is to solicit/gather it, and view constructive feedback as gold.  What would be the best way to ensure we leave the door open for unanticipated constructive feedback?

 

Defer to editor’s choice on ranking columns/etc.

 

G

 

 

From: Sebastien--- via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 11:45 AM
To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question

 

Hi Sarah,

 

 

Your proposed additional column sounds good to me, but I did hear voices again on our last call who have stronger opinion than I do on how to record prioritization criteria. I am happy to go with the group majority.

 

 

Regarding you point on the document’s audience and usage. You are absolutely right, we did discuss that this is for the SC to enter and use. I specially asked that should input come from third parties, these should be recorded by members who 1/ would have filtered to ensure requirements remain with our mandate, and 2/ would be able to champion each item, prioritize, etc…

Following the CSG session I asked for the finding to be incorporated in the document, rather than having us scouring through minutes. Steve Crocker, raise the issue of lack of resources from his group; I assume that Valerie Heng of staff, entered the items on behalf of the CSG SC members. I would ask now for these members to own the said entries, verify that they all are relevant and within our scope, before prioritising them.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Sebastien Ducos

GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager

signature_1555567929

+33612284445

France & Australia

sebastien@registry.godaddy

 

 

From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 7:19 PM
To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] impressions doc - cleanup, and question

Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.

 

Hi team,

I'd like to ask our ICANN staff team to do some housekeeping in the Impressions document. I propose adding columns for the priority and LOE (they can be together as they are so interdependent), status, and notes. Then the info that's in the columns where it does not belong, or in the sidebar comments, can be moved into the appropriate boxes. 

This will make the sheet easier to read, and means that the tables can be re-sorted by priority, status (move all completed to the bottom), etc. What do you think?

I also would like to clarify the specific purpose or audience of the Impressions doc. I thought it was for S.C. Members to submit our impressions so that the group could come to agreement on changes to make in the platform, but I see new input that I understand came from an engagement forum and did not go through this Committee. Is that how we'd like to proceed, with this sheet as sort of a clearinghouse for all the input?

Thanks,

--

Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld@tucows.com

_______________________________________________
Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list -- gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-rdrs-sc-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


--
Sent by a Verified
Sent by a Verified sender
sender