[CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report

[Seun Ojedeji]

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 at 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at 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 at ntia.doc.gov>
> >To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190220/7ab8c28a/attachment.html>