I’m going
to request, as I did before, that the choice of response
times in the version of the agreement put out for public
comment not be a binary choice between 24 hours and one
business day, because that implies that the PSWG wants the
24 hour response time. The PSWG wants an immediate
response time, so if there is going to be a public debate,
it should be between what the PSWG actually wants
(immediate), what the providers want (one business day),
and the compromise (24 hours).
Peter Roman
Senior
Counsel
Computer
Crime & Intellectual Property Section
Criminal
Division
Department of
Justice
1301 New York
Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-1323
peter.roman@usdoj.gov
Dear Colleagues,
Upon reviewing your most recent feedback on
the LEA Framework Specification, we have a couple of items
left where there isn’t a clear consensus among the members of
the IRT. Please review this list this week and share any
additional feedback you have no later than next Tuesday, 8
May. We can discuss on our scheduled call next week, if
needed.
I’ve attached the most recent markup,
showing in redline only the comments on the sections where
there is some disagreement among members of the IRT.
For reference, those sections and issues
are:
Section 3.3.1 (time period for
responses to high-priority requests)—it appears likely we will
not obtain consensus on this item
Section 4.1.2: The proposed
addition of “without limitations,” either here or moved to
Section 4.1.4.
Section 4.1.2.5.: The proposed
addition of this section in its entirety.
Section 4.1.6: The proposed
addition of this section in its entirety, including whether
this would be redundant or whether this should be incorporated
elsewhere.
Best,
Amy
Amy E. Bivins
Registrar Services and
Engagement Senior Manager
Registrar Services and
Industry Relations
Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551
Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104
Email:
amy.bivins@icann.org
www.icann.org