Farzaneh, all, from a chronology perspective, please note that:

• The version from Sarah was followed up with an updated version from Diane, which included the language you refer below (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001546.html)
• This updated version from Diane was discussed during EPDP Team meeting #44 (see https://community.icann.org/x/R50WBg).
• As a result of EPDP Team meeting #44, a number of minor changes (related to the word ‘request’) were proposed – the updated language was circulated to the list for review immediately after meeting #44 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001586.html)
• As a result of some further comments on the mailing list, the changes made during EPDP Team meeting #44 were further discussed during EPDP Team meeting #45 (see https://community.icann.org/x/TJ0WBg)
• As a result of EPDP Team meeting #45, changes made during EPDP Team meeting #44 were reverted which resulted in the language that was shared to the list for review after meeting #45 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001642.html) and subsequently included in the latest version of the Final Report.

We hope this is helpful.

Best regards,

Caitlin, Berry and Marika

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 16:50
To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>
Cc: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus Call - Bundle #3

Dear Kurt,

As to recommendation 15, I am surprised that the IPC suggested changes are simply copy pasted in at least two instances in the report :

- Logs of Requests, Acknowledgements and Responses should be maintained in accordance with standard business recordation practices so that they are available to be produced as needed including, but not limited to, for audit purposes by ICANN Compliance;

-A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation].

As far as I remember CPs on that thread (Alan Woods and Marc) and us (NCSG) objected to adding audit. Did anything change?   I also  see a change to "urgent" requests done by IPC which is totally unacceptable and I cannot remember we ever came to a consensus about that. This also applies to additions to logs of requests. 

Sarah on that thread had suggested some acceptable changes that I believe addresses the issues and is middle ground. I have attached those suggestions.

Farzaneh

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:24 PM Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone:

I have attached Bundle 3 of the consensus designations. As some items are still in discussion or newly minted, I have held off assigning a designation to those. To make it clear, I have created two separate tables (3A and 3B).

I have taken a conservative approach in holding back a final designation where we have not received feedback on final wording. However, I do think we have agreement on nearly all of these and look forward to closing them out by the end of this week.

Please comment on Table 3A by the end of this week if you disagree or wish to discuss the level of consensus indicated. Please use Table 3B  to consider your response so that we can request a rapid turnaround on that table when it is issued.

Please read the introduction to the document for a more complete explanation.

Please let me know if you have questions or need for further explanation.

As always, thank you and best regards,

Kurt

_______________________________________________
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team