[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [ALAC] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses

[cw at christopherwilkinson.eu]

Good morning:

Regarding the BC/IPC comments, jut received:

1.	Recommendation #1, Purpose 2 

I do not support the proposed amendment. (a) it permits too much third party interpretation of what those terms mean. 
(b) that approach has in the past been abused through ‘bulk access’. My reading of Annex F is that bulk access would still be permitted. I disagree.

2.	Recommenations #16 and #17 Geographic Distinction.

My understanding is that ALAC supports a uniform best practice ICANN privacy policy and practice. Neither the EPDP nor BC/IPC reflect this. 
BC/IPC would kick that can down the road. ALAC should restate the At Large position. I see no justification for ‘compromise’ here.

Regards

CW

PS:  As far as I can see the EPDP report does not contain a summary statement of their [17] Recommendations. Where are they?



> On 18 Feb 2019, at 04:46, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190218/e5aa7842/attachment-0001.html>