The implementation team misinterpreted the Phase 1 recommendations by applying the same two business-day
acknowledgment period for general requests to urgent requests. This flawed interpretation had the effect of
prolonging the timeframe to respond to an urgent request. However, the foundational logic of dealing with “urgent”
requests separately was to streamline the entire process because these requests deal with time-sensitive matters
that involve threats to life, safety, or vital infrastructure. Hence, it would be neither reasonable nor logical to view
the 2-day acknowledgement provision as overriding or extending the separate timeline for responding to urgent
requests. More specifically, the acknowledgement time for general requests should not delay the contemplated
expedited timeline for urgent requests. The GAC believes that this interpretation conflicts with the clear Phase 1
directive to develop “a separate timeline” for the response to urgent requests. The GAC recommends that the
implementation team must revisit this issue to ensure that responses to urgent requests are in fact expedited in a
manner consistent with an emergency response.

Actually, it is not misinterpretation. The two timelines, normal and urgent requests, are mentioned separately in the final report (approved by WG, Council and Board): 30 days for normal requests, less than X number of business days for urgent requests. It’s logical that urgent requests are to acted upon faster, and that’s exactly what’s in the PDP output. 

Trying to relitigate policy decisions only contribute to further delays of policy implementation. 


Rubens