<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
Kurt, I need to consult with my colleagues and ALAC whether this is "die in the ditch" issue, but I do not believe that the "expression of need" at this very moment should be a pre-requisite for haveing the ability to request such data in the future on short
notice.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
At 01/02/2019 05:31 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Hi again everyone: <br>
<br>
In a followup to yesterday’s email that proposed conclusions to four Recommendations, I am writing to provide one more. This Recommendation incorporates the Team’s latest verbally developed conclusions on the “Research Purpose.
<br>
<br>
As with the memoranda furnished yesterday, this one provides a brief summary of the latest discussion and then follows with proposed Final Report language: (1) a narrative describing the group discussion, and (2) an amended Recommendation - i.e., amended from
the Initial Report version of the Recommendation. <br>
<br>
As mentioned in the earlier emails, please review this revised wording with your groups and return to us by Monday 4 Feb if you believe a region or additional discussion is require - so that we can put any this topic on the Tues/Wed/Thur agendas. Let me know
if you have any questions, procedural or substantive.<br>
<br>
I have one more paper to deliver to you - Recommendation 11 Data Retention. <br>
<br>
Thanks again and best regards,<br>
<br>
Kurt<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>Kurt Pritz <<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com">kurt@kjpritz.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject: Revised Recommendations for (Final) Review - with attachments</b><br>
<b>Date: </b>January 31, 2019 at 8:31:45 PM PST<br>
<b>To: </b>EPDP <<a href="mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org">gnso-epdp-team@icann.org</a> ><br>
<br>
Hello Everyone: <br>
<br>
Thanks again for your perseverance. And - thank you in advance for your spirit of cooperation and compromise in considering the attached. We have spent the last few days reviewing the transcripts and other records of our recent discussions and then amending
the Final Report Recommendations - taking into account the Initial Report Recommendations, the small team work, the conclusions in Toronto and these last several meetings.
<br>
<br>
The Recommendations included here are: <br>
<br>
Recommendation 5 - Data elements to be transferred from Registrars to Registries<br>
Recommendation 10 - Email communication<br>
Recommendation 12 - Reasonable Access<br>
Recommendation 14 - Responsible Parties<br>
<br>
[Not included are Rec. 13 (sent earlier) and Rec. 11 and the Research Purpose (to be sent tomorrow.]<br>
<br>
Each of these documents has a brief forward containing a description of the pertinent discussion and an explanation for choosing the wording in the Recommendations. They each then contain the Recommendation as originally written and a redline of the proposed
recommendation based on the most recent discussions. Please read the entire documents (they are not long), and not just the recommendation itself.<br>
<br>
I am certainly not asking for you to stand silently by if you disagree with these Recommendations because they would negatively impact GDPR compliance. I am asking that you study the balancing that went into this and be ready to accept wording in cases where
it does not match your own choice. <br>
<br>
Please review with your groups and return to us by Monday so that we can put any of these on the Tues/Wed/Thur agendas.
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
Kurt<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>