Wouldn’t that view render the public comment process and subsequent review, analysis and response from the ICANN team a nullity? In my view, we have more options
than the two identified below and it’s worth exploring them.
Kind regards,
Laureen Kapin
Assistant Director for International Consumer Protection
Office of International Affairs
Federal Trade Commission
lkapin@ftc.gov
From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl via IRT.RegDataPolicy
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:20 AM
To: Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] [EXTERNAL] Proposal for reconciling competing issues related to Urgent requests
Em 18 de jul. de 2023, à(s) 11:59, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> escreveu:
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.
Why a text approved by this IRT would be a non-starter puzzles me. It’s actually the only text that got consensus at any point in this IRT existence, while all the other suggestions from Org and from IRT members did not.
Which is why not following any of the two choices I mentioned would be an immediate trigger for an RfR. We either respect the consensus and compromise reached before, or we throw it away completely and start over. Replacing by anything
lacking consensus is not an option.