Hi Everyone: TIMING I have been asked by a couple groups about the timing of feedback for the Final Report, given that we are at the conclusion of the quiet period. The purpose of this time was to flag issues for the final report and also to provide a group written statement accompanying the report on topics. As it currently sits, today is the day to flag issues in the final report so that the next version can be developed and meet agendas can be set for next week. However, statements that will be included in the reports can be provided later as they will added to or incorporated into the report in some way. If necessary, statements could be issued as late as Tuesday. (To differentiate between today’s requirement to flag issues and the statements: I think it means that there are no surprises in the report.) I wish to thank many who have contributed their review of the report. Many questions were raised and I believe the report will be better understood based on the email interactions and clarifications that have taken place. We plan meetings for Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss issues raised and items that need to be closed. OUTSTANDING ITEMS I have not yet sent out the last Bundle (aka “3B”) for designation of consensus. Part of this week was to allow for online discussion of those recommendations. I have had been party to discussions on the recommendation for Reasonable Access where the there is not yet agreement on the phrasing “Reasonable Requests for Lawful Access” vs “Reasonable Lawful Access” so that I could fully understand the concerns between the two phrases. This remaining difference is the result of the clock running out as different versions were championed at different meetings. I think we should place Reasonable Access on the agenda for Tuesday. This is an important recommendation and one where we have made great headway and come farther than I thought we would. It is always risky for me to characterize an issue but I want to take advantage of the work we have done to date and the agreement in principle that we have on this Recommendation and come to agreement on the language as well. During our meetings, I heard two concerns raised in reference to the two different phrasings above. Contracted Parties want to ensure that just because a request is reasonable or properly submitted, that disclosure is not required. The request must still be lawful (e.g., in a Art 6(1)f sense) before a disclosure is made. Data requesters want to ensure that registrars will not respond merely by rejecting all requests - but that they take reasonable steps to determine if the request can be fulfilled in a GDPR-complaint way. I think the spirit of the agreement addresses both of those concerns but there is concern that the different phrasings allow the agreement in principle to be turned. I believe that the Recommendation can be made final by adding sentence regarding a reasonable response by registrars and the requirement that requests must be GDPR complaint before disclosure can be made. I hope you find that constructive. It is sort of an extraordinary intervention on my part but I see an opportunity to arrive at a consensus position on a very difficult topic. Please let me know if you have questions on either of these two topics. Best regards, Kurt