[Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)

[Roman, Peter (CRM)]

Then the version of the document put out for discussion here in the IRT should reflect the three choices, for the same reasons.

Peter Roman

Senior Counsel
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
1301 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-1323
peter.roman at usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman at usdoj.gov>

From: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:05 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org; Roman, Peter (CRM) <Peter.Roman at CRM.USDOJ.GOV>
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)


I think we are not at this stage yet Peter.
As mentioned before, I think the scope of the recommendations will be caught up in reality real soon and turn the entire thing out of scope.

Theo

On 1-5-2018 21:54, Roman, Peter (CRM) wrote:
I'm going to request, as I did before, that the choice of response times in the version of the agreement put out for public comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the 24 hour response time.  The PSWG wants an immediate response time, so if there is going to be a public debate, it should be between what the PSWG actually wants (immediate), what the providers want (one business day), and the compromise (24 hours).

Peter Roman

Senior Counsel
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
1301 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-1323
peter.roman at usdoj.gov<mailto:peter.roman at usdoj.gov>

From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org<mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)

Dear Colleagues,

Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items left where there isn't a clear consensus among the members of the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8 May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if needed.

I've attached the most recent markup, showing in redline only the comments on the sections where there is some disagreement among members of the IRT.

For reference, those sections and issues are:

Section 3.3.1 (time period for responses to high-priority requests)-it appears likely we will not obtain consensus on this item

Section 4.1.2: The proposed addition of "without limitations," either here or moved to Section 4.1.4.

Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety.

Section 4.1.6: The proposed addition of this section in its entirety, including whether this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated elsewhere.

Best,
Amy

Amy E. Bivins
Registrar Services and Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and Industry Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax:  +1 (202) 789-0104
Email: amy.bivins at icann.org<mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org>
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>





_______________________________________________

Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list

Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org<mailto:Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl/attachments/20180501/b7f9be72/attachment-0001.html>