FWIW, whether the “actual law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place” is irrelevant to the discussion. The 24 hour response time only applies to the time that
the Provider actually has control over, from when the provider receives the request until the provider responds. How much time the local LE takes to do their part is not part of the calculation.
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
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Pelling
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 4:06 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
Hi Roman,
I am putting on the record that I support 1 business day, I certainly find it unacceptable for immediate as it simply is not workable. Also to take into consideration is if the actual
law enforcement in the local jurisdiction of the registrar works that fast in the first place.
Kind regards,
Chris
From:
"Roman, Peter (CRM)" <Peter.Roman@usdoj.gov>
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Sent: Tuesday, 1 May, 2018 20:54:20
Subject: Re: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
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
From: Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl [mailto:gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Amy Bivins
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 3:07 PM
To: gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
Subject: [Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl] PP LEA Framework: Remaining items for IRT feedback (requested deadline 8 May)
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
_______________________________________________
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl mailing list
Gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd-gnso-ppsai-impl