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

Heineman, Ashley AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov
Fri Feb 8 19:12:08 UTC 2019

Dear Kurt.  Is it safe to assume that you were actually referring to Recommendation 12?  IE: *not* Recommendation 13, which is what you state in your previous email?

If so, I'd like to come back one more time and note that while I appreciate giving Thomas another attempt to address his points, might I just say that adding a substantial change at this stage (which Thomas' language does) is very difficult considering the amount of time we have left.  I understood the points Thomas made and stand by the email I sent yesterday.   Simply put, this new text is misplaced in the recommendation.  That being said, Thomas raises valid points with respect to the how disclosure will be made to LEA and that is an issue, along with other access and third party matters, that must be discussed in phase 2.  The request to delete Thomas' text returns the Recommendation to a place where we believe the majority could live with, and me and my GAC colleagues support discussing the legitimate concern’s raised by both Chris (GAC) and Thomas in Phase 2.

Thanks for the opportunity to put forward this position again.  I'll be signing off after today as I'll be unavailable on Monday (Laureen will be in my place).  Happy to continue the conversation in the little time we have left.

Many thanks and hope you all have a great weekend!

From: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 11:04 AM
To: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Cc: Heineman, Ashley
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review: updated recommendations 10, 11, 12

Thanks for this additional input on Recommendation 13.  Please forgive these observations and consider this recommendation for closing off this remaining issue.

During our meeting Thomas was given the floor to explain his edits. During that, there was the usual chat going on: first some non-substantive commentary, then a different discussion. Partially through Thomas’ intervention, I shook myself out of watching the chat to listen to Thomas, who was making a careful, studied explanation of his addition. I kicked myself (figuratively) for missing part his explanation when, in a few months, any of us would probably give a lot to have Thomas available to answer questions such as these. It made we wonder how many of us were watching the chat instead of listening.

Understanding Thomas point, I made the suggestion to the group that we retain it in some form (a more complete explanation of the issue) but move it down into the body of the recommendation as an item to be considered. At that point, my sense was that the team wanted to leave it first and foremost and I withdrew my suggestion to move it.

Having said that, I understand Ashley’s comment that we don’t have a full handle on the effect of the GDPR sections Thomas cited on out recommendations.

I recommend that we:

  *   respectfully ask Thomas to augment the issue somewhat with a couple / few sentences.
  *   move that issue to the annotation describing the recommendation with a notation that this issue be sorted out during the implementation discussion.

Let me know what you think.

Best regards,


At 07/02/2019 03:52 PM, Heineman, Ashley wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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

Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190208/0026c02c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list