impressions doc - cleanup, and question
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
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<mailto: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<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>
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<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 7:19 PM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>
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 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 +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
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 <https://forum.twnic.tw/2024/agenda01.htm> 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
[image: 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
[image: 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 [image: Sent by a Verified sender] <https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y> sender
Hi Gab, Let me maybe rephrase: I am happy to get feedback from far and wide, but I do need someone from the SC to own, give us context if need be and help prioritise each item. Not trying to put you on the spot, but in the example of LEA comments from Taiwan, I am happy to have it included as long as you (as PSWG/LEA rep) can help us by owning it. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_1711333177] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews@fbi.gov> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 9:34 PM To: Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question You don't often get email from gfandrews@fbi.gov. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 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@. 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<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 7:19 PM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>
Sounds fair and reasonable. I have then the action to connect directly w the originator(s) to ensure I understand the feedback, and will own tracking it going forward. Cheers. From: Sebastien@registry.godaddy <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 3:19 AM To: Andrews, Gabriel F. (STB) (FBI) <gfandrews@fbi.gov>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question Hi Gab, Let me maybe rephrase: I am happy to get feedback from far and wide, but I do need someone from the SC to own, give us context if need be and help prioritise each item. Not trying to put you on the spot, but in the example of LEA comments from Taiwan, I am happy to have it included as long as you (as PSWG/LEA rep) can help us by owning it. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_1711333177] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews@fbi.gov<mailto:gfandrews@fbi.gov>> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 9:34 PM To: Sebastien Ducos <Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy>>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>>, gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question You don't often get email from gfandrews@fbi.gov<mailto:gfandrews@fbi.gov>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> 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@. 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<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 11:45 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 7:19 PM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>
participants (5)
-
Gabriel Andrews -
Lisa Carter -
Sarah Wyld -
Sebastien＠registry.godaddy -
Steve Crocker