[Gnso-epdp-team] For your review: updated recommendations 10, 11, 12

Margie Milam margiemilam at fb.com
Fri Feb 8 00:14:17 UTC 2019

Hi Ashley & All –
We support the deletion of the LEA request language as proposed by Ashley and support moving the discussion of LEA access to Phase 2.

All the best,


From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM
To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-team at icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review: updated recommendations 10, 11, 12

Thanks for this and hello colleagues,

After further reflection on today’s discussion of Recommendation 12 and the new text proposed by Thomas, I believe this language should be deleted.   Specifically – “These criteria are applicable to disclosure requests relating to civil claims. LEA requests will be handled according to applicable laws.”

While I am extremely pleased with the state of the Recommendation overall, this new insertion has not been fully considered and I believe is misplaced.

I understand and am sympathetic to Thomas’ concerns, but that being said, I believe those concerns are best addressed elsewhere. The singular intent of Recommendation 12 is to provide clarity around the process and expectations of reasonable lawful disclosure in terms of making requests.  The recommendation attempts to ensure that expectations are set for how to submit requests and in what fashion those requests will be handled once received.  The Recommendation does NOT assume that disclosure will be made and, further, it isn’t even contemplated how and on what basis a decision for disclosing (or not) will be made. Those issues are to be dealt with in Phase 2 and/or otherwise in a specific access discussion.

I’m thus concerned that by explicitly limiting this recommendation to civil requests will unfairly and unnecessarily remove the benefits of process clarity for LEA.

In light of these concerns, I strongly recommend the deletion of this text.  Thomas’ legitimate concerns should then be taken up and addressed in our Phase 2 work.


202 482 0298

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 3:26 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review: updated recommendations 10, 11, 12

Dear EPDP Team:

Attached, please find the updated recommendations. The updates are the result of today’s EPDP Team discussion

As always, please feel free to flag any text that you believe does not represent what the Team agreed to.

Best regards,

Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190208/f1e0d22b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list