?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