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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
The amendment proposed by Marc SEENS REASOABLE THUS i SUPPORT IT
Regards
Kavouss

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:37 AM Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kurt
> Thomas
> Ashley
> Thank you all
> Let us wait the reaction of Thomas
> Kurt
> Once again
> I request you to kindly treat all comments and suggestion equally based on
> their merits
> I have made several but never ever you analysed that like what you did for
> thus and few other cases
> Pls kindly reconsider sud-est your treatment
> All of us are equal .
> We should kyste. To the song and NOT THE SINGER
> TKS
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Feb 2019, at 17:04, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
>
> 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,
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
>
> 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.â€
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ashley
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190209/8267198f/attachment.html>