Hi All, Thomas

In working on the draft response to the GAC Communique language on the issue of the timing of urgent requests for registration data, I note the update below that Sebastien Ducos sent to the Council mailing list on 26 October.  I have not seen any reaction to this – I suspect that the timing of this, right at the end of the Hamburg meeting, may have something to do with that.

 

It appears from Sebastien’s update that the IRT would like Council’s input on this issue of urgent requests. I therefore sought feedback from my IPC colleagues, which is as follows:

 

·       EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 states as follows:

o   “The EPDP Team recommends that criteria for a Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure and the requirements for acknowledging receipt of a request and response to such request will be defined as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations but will include at a minimum [emphasis added]:

…

● Timeline & Criteria for Registrar and Registry Operator Responses - Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure:

…

● 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].

 

The EPDP Team recommends that the above be implemented and further work on defining these criteria commences as needed and as soon as possible.”

 

·       For convenience, the EPDP P1 Final Report is here, and Rec#18 starts p59.

 

·       It appears, if the IPC understands Sebastien correctly, that the IRT has taken the view that EPDP Phase 1 Rec#18 only requires the IRT to “consider” urgent requests and that, as such, the policy recommendation does not require a process and timing for the handling of urgent requests actually to be implemented, provided that the IRT has considered this issue (which it believes that it has). 

 

·       That interpretation does not align with the working group’s intent on Rec#18, and nor is it a reasonable interpretation of the words as written in that recommendation.  The intent of Rec#18 is that the IRT should determine a time limit within which Registries and Registrars must consider and accommodate urgent requests, not that it should discuss the matter and decide not to do anything, presumably because it falls into the “too hard” category.

 

Perhaps there is some nuance or additional information that we are not presently seeing.  I have been instructed therefore to request that Council receive a briefing on this aspect of the implementation effort at its next meeting.  Hopefully this is something that Thomas, as the Council Liaison, could help facilitate?  I will add this to the agenda working document.

 

Many thanks

 

 

Dear GNSO Council,

 

The Registration Data Policy IRT has met today to review its position following the GAC letter of 23 August 2023 and the RrSG letter of 8 September 2023 offering to remove the contentious Urgent Request wording to allow for a speeding publication of the Policy.

 

The IRT going back to the original Recommendation 18 requesting the IRT to “consider” Urgent Requests believes that in essence it has  considered the topic and therefore is able to remove the wording from the final policy without requiring further input from either the GNSO Council or the ICANN Board.

The IRT also notes that in the spirit of the above mentioned letters, the issue of Urgent Requests is a topic that must be resolved and asks the GNSO Council to consider it and relevantly prioritize it in its work.

 

Kindly,