SSAD SRT members, The straw-person document has been updated with revised Rec 6 language. https://docs.google.com/document/d/17N6Y3yYUmbfbAFO6QwR8S1u0uZY0HxKYc8HaadBQtMQ/<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1kocAUOJ7r66jAUl0_Vphnos8M-ocnijxcMsytRInv6V7AldSu2YZW8q9XYx-lxtReSo0tQv7WAxTNXkwH8bn2Ir6Z1-3kudHTI15O9G1p-KVYNEjrVC9EeeZdiHe8nGNk3PhysI7YR7EvmkbfRZlDtFGiJ0LELuMVVHxvcXsr4IqvaxnoHb6RALD4NRGMLBDAkGlJWtCTtiO5LmSiibHEVCwDhqPnekLhdi59PoX0yurqlkcYqMoSM2LnOvqUhL-ZP5MiGjIP5syVnCm2cmTBe7lgOSuZDEF5lmKFTSWq6s/https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F17N6Y3yYUmbfbAFO6QwR8S1u0uZY0HxKYc8HaadBQtMQ%2F> Please take a look and provide feedback either in the google document or on the list. If you have issues or concerns with the language; proposing new text to address is helpful. Like with Rec 8, staff has kept the side-by-side text with redlines. Following that, they have added a new section with a clean version of the proposed draft recommendation to help with review. In addition, staff has also provided the following changelog of the high-level changes made following our discussion at ICANN 86: Recommendation 6 * Critical Infrastructure has been added to the glossary and matches the definition in the Registration Data Policy. (There was a comment during ICANN 86 that NCSG members may wish to add illustrative examples of critical infrastructure.) * 6.4, 6.4.1, and 6.5 have been crossed out based on comments that this text is more relevant (if at all) under Recommendation 10 and should be relocated there for further discussion. * A new 6.5 has been added to clarify that if a Requestor is of the view that its request was improperly recategorized by the Contracted Party, the Requestor MAY file a complaint with ICANN Org. ICANN Org will then investigate complaints regarding improper categorization under its standard enforcement processes. * Additional text has been added to the rationale, explaining the preliminary agreement that the SSAD SRT will proceed with two priority levels instead of three. In explaining the removal of the original Priority 2 (ICANN administrative proceedings), the rationale now notes that due to discussions outside of this group on how to mitigate against false ICANN administrative claims, the SSAD SRT ultimately decided to remove the separate category from Recommendation 6. In removing the ICANN administrative proceedings category, however, the SSAD SRT noted two things: (1) the response times required under existing Consensus Policies, e.g., 2 business days for responding to UDRP registrar verification requests, remain in place and are NOT affected by the SLAS under this policy, and (ii) the SSAD SRT is not intending to restrict the use of SSAD for administrative proceedings in the future. Thank you, Marc Anderson