Thanks for this exchange.

Urgent requests (which only apply to circumstances that pose an imminent threat to life, of serious bodily injury, to critical infrastructure, or of child exploitation) may or may not involve DNS Abuse (perhaps more likely re: threats to infrastructure) but certainly involve very grave situations.  That’s the rationale for the 24 hour response timeframe.

Looking forward to our discussion later today.

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: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 12:55 PM
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 19 de jul. de 2023, à(s) 13:32, BF <bettyfausta@gmail.com> escreveu:

I support the proposition of June 7

For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry Operator MUST acknowledge and respond without undue delay, but no more than 24 hours two (2) business days from receipt.

This for me is useful for crises like DNS Abuse and can be comprehensive for large time zone matters.

This policy is about urgent disclosure requests, not DNS Abuse. For DNS Abuse there are contractual provisions other than Reg Data Policy. 

Conflating the issues is not helpful. 

Rubens