?Hi Seun GAC modified their statement in this regard. It was a mistake. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Sent: 20 February 2019 14:57 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg> wrote: Hi Seun, First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that it is optional for the registrars. So they are saying that it is optional for the registrants, SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants but they prefer it not to be optional. Enjoy the event and regards to everyone. Regards well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that. Hadia ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52 To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report 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<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg><mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto: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<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto: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<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov><mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov<mailto:AHeineman@ntia.doc.gov>>> To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org><mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg