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

[Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi]

?Hi Seun


GAC modified their statement in this regard. It was a mistake.


Hadia

________________________________
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Sent: 20 February 2019 14:57
To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia at tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
Hi Seun,


First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars.  So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants,

SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional.

Enjoy the event and regards to everyone.

Regards

well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that.


Hadia

________________________________
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52
To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG
Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report

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<mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org>>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto: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<mailto:AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov><mailto:AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov>>>
>To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CPWG at icann.org><mailto:CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg