Simply stated, I think that there was a mismatch between the compromise described during the call and the proffered IRT language. I participated in the last call and reviewed the recordings and there was not discussion of a three-business day ceiling. The GAC expressed concerns about lengthy timelines in its public comment in the first place and the proffered IRT language maintains the original ceiling of three business days. However, during our last call we focused on a ceiling of two business days.

No mismatch, it was simply the discussion of what was being considered, and there was no discussion whatsoever of complex requests.

I propose the following text to ensure that we implement the compromise discussed on the call which involved the “without undue delay, generally 24 hours” and the opportunity to request extensions of up to two business days:

10.6. For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry Operator
MUST respond, as defined in Section 10.7, without undue delay, generally within
24 hours of receipt.

10.6.1. If Registrar or Registry Operator cannot respond to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure within 24 hours, it MUST notify the requestor within 24 hours of receipt of an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure of the need for an extension to respond.

10.6.2 Registrar or Registry Operator’s extension notification to the requestor MUST include (a) confirmation that it has reviewed and considered the Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure on its merits and determined additional time to respond is needed, (b) rationale for why additional time is needed (including if a request is complex or the Registrar or Registry Operator received a large number of requests), and (c) the time frame it will respond, as required by Section 10.7, which cannot exceed two (2) business days from the time of the initial receipt of the request.

Which is just to say that complex requests take the same time as a simple request. This just tries to deny reality.

For context, here is what ICANN Org offered after it assessed the public comments:

10.6. For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry Operator
MUST acknowledge and respond without undue delay, but no more than 24
hours from receipt. If responding to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure is
complex, or a large number are received by Registrar or Registry Operator, it
MAY extend the time for response up to an additional one (1) business day from
the date of receipt of the Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure, provided it gives
notice to the requestor within the initial 24 hour period and explains the need for
an extension of time.

That offer had 0 chance of ever making it into policy, as I mentioned several times. So this comparison is just moot.

This construct shows that original structure comprised an initial period and one additional opportunity for an extension, not two.

I believe the two extensions is an interpretation that I believe was not the intent of the drafters of this language, so I don’t mind clarifying the language for it to clearly show whether is one extension after another, or a possible series of extensions properly justified, as long as the allowed time factors the complexity of the request. At the end of the day, a complex request needs more time to both have its lawfulness assed and when green lit by legal, to be executed by operations. That is the total time that needs to be 3 business days in this case.

If I was on the requester side, I would prefer allowing more extensions in order to minimize the average response time, which is more in the Agile philosophy of software product development. But if predictability is a stronger value to requesters, even if it ends up increasing the actual time it takes, then a single extension is what makes sense.