Hello Haidia,

I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also rightly also stated.

From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg wrote:
One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field


Hadia
________________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44
To: CPWG
Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report

Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.

Alan

>From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>
>To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>
>Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000
>Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
>
>Dear Kurt,
>
>Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final
>report from the GAC small group.  FWIW - this does NOT represent an
>objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
>
>Thanks kindly,
>
>Ashley Heineman
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg