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).

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