Of these two choices, (1) is, IMO, a non-starter. (2), sending it back to the policy process, is a poor but available path. If this is the path the group chooses, I recommend including a cover note that conveys this proposal as a possible solution but the group viewed it as outside its remit to consider.

Steve

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:55 AM Rubens Kuhl via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> wrote:

Em 18 de jul. de 2023, à(s) 09:11, Elizabeth Bacon <bbacon@pir.org> escreveu:

Hi Folks,
While I appreciate the effort to think outside the box, we have a fairly targeted question in front of us: Can we decide on edited language for the timeline to respond to urgent requests, or do we revert to the language that went out for public comment?

The options I see are
1) Revert to the language that went out for public comment
2) Having no language at all on urgent requests and send this specific issue to the policy process

Rubens

_______________________________________________
IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
IRT.RegDataPolicy@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy

_______________________________________________
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.