This is rather disappointing. I don’t see any “failure to deal with data accuracy requirements.” As you know well there is already an extensive data Accuracy policy that ICANN requires registrants and registrars to adhere to. GAC also should know that accuracy under GDPR is a data subject right not a third party right, and since our SG actually looks out for the interests of data subjects (and another big disappointment here is that national Governments in GAC have failed repeatedly to show any concern for data subjects) we think the current approach to accuracy is lousy but has nothing to do with the epdp. Does GAC need to be reminded that the GNSO Council has already determined that any modification of accuracy policy would be a separate proceeding? Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Jul 29, 2020, at 18:26, Kapin, Laureen via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> wrote:  Hi folks, Attached is the GAC’s response to the Chair’s Consensus Designations. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Counsel for International Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (202) 326-3237 <GAC redline edits Consensus designation table 7_29.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.