[Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus Call - Bundle #3
marika.konings at icann.org
Wed Feb 13 23:07:13 UTC 2019
Farzaneh, as we understand, this reference specifically relates to the action item coming out of Monday’s meeting in relation to the changes that were agreed in relation to this recommendation during the meeting, taking into account that not everyone was on the call (in particular Ashley who had proposed the original changes).
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 17:55
To: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus Call - Bundle #3
I am truly sorry and apologize to all for confusing the columns.I was referring to recommendation 18, page 9/10/11 of this report, reasonable access. the column says that language been revised on 11 Feb and is giving time for the group to review it.
It is in the final report that Rafik shared with a caveat that "agreement in principle awaiting sign off of latest language -[page 20]". I hope I got the numbers correct this time.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:46 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
As to recommendation 15, I am surprised that the IPC suggested changes are simply copy pasted in at least two instances in the report :
- Logs of Requests, Acknowledgements and Responses should be maintained in accordance with standard business recordation practices so that they are available to be produced as needed including, but not limited to, for audit purposes by ICANN Compliance;
-A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation].
As far as I remember CPs on that thread (Alan Woods and Marc) and us (NCSG) objected to adding audit. Did anything change? I also see a change to "urgent" requests done by IPC which is totally unacceptable and I cannot remember we ever came to a consensus about that. This also applies to additions to logs of requests.
Sarah on that thread had suggested some acceptable changes that I believe addresses the issues and is middle ground. I have attached those suggestions.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:24 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>> wrote:
I have attached Bundle 3 of the consensus designations. As some items are still in discussion or newly minted, I have held off assigning a designation to those. To make it clear, I have created two separate tables (3A and 3B).
I have taken a conservative approach in holding back a final designation where we have not received feedback on final wording. However, I do think we have agreement on nearly all of these and look forward to closing them out by the end of this week.
Please comment on Table 3A by the end of this week if you disagree or wish to discuss the level of consensus indicated. Please use Table 3B to consider your response so that we can request a rapid turnaround on that table when it is issued.
Please read the introduction to the document for a more complete explanation.
Please let me know if you have questions or need for further explanation.
As always, thank you and best regards,
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...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team