OFFICIAL Hi all I didn't think we had reached agreement the timing and as Alex has highlighted the intent from the phase 1 was for a separate timeline during the meeting I did think I heard agreement for everyone to review an earlier proposal which is as below; "For an Urgent Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure which meets the format required by the Registrar or Registry Operator, Registrars and Registry Operators MUST respond without undue delay, but within 24 hours from receipt. If responding to an Urgent Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure is complex, or a large number of requests are received by a Registrar or a Registry Operator within a 24 hour period, Registrars or Registry Operators MAY extend the time for response up to an additional two (2) business days from the date of receipt of the Urgent Reasonable Request for Lawful Disclosure, provided Registrars or Registry Operators provide notice to the requestor within the initial 24 hour period and explain the need for an extension of time." Many Thanks Chris From: IRT.RegDataPolicy [mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: 20 July 2021 14:36 To: irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Urgent requests RE: Input on Section 11.6 andSection 10 of the OneDoc. Hi all, I thought we had finally reached agreement at our last meeting that we could compromise on 2 business days total (I'm not really concerned with how it's divided between ack and response), it's disappointing to be revisiting this conversation yet again. As we have expressed, the recommendation said "X business days" and I still think 2 business days is a reasonable turnaround time, especially since there are dedicated LEA contact points that Registrars must maintain and which LEA can use in emergencies. Thank you, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/her swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392 [cid:image001.png@01D77D7B.9DC8F040] From: Kapin, Laureen via IRT.RegDataPolicy<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Sent: July 20, 2021 9:28 AM To: Alex Deacon<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com>; LEWIS-EVANS, Christopher<mailto:Christopher.Lewis-Evans@nca.gov.uk> Cc: irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Urgent requests RE: Input on Section 11.6 andSection 10 of the OneDoc. I agree with Alex regarding his analysis of the requirements for urgent requests. In thinking this through further, I observe that there is no requirement in Phase 1, that urgent requests must be acknowledged. Hence, consistent with our goal of streamlining the timeline for urgent requests, we propose a response "without undue delay, but no more than 24 hours from receipt." Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Acting Assistant Director Division of Consumer Response and Operations Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission From: IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alex Deacon via IRT.RegDataPolicy Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:14 PM To: Dennis Chang via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> Subject: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Input on Section 11.6 and Section 10 of the OneDoc. Team, A few thoughts on the One Doc. I've added these as comments in the OneDoc as well.... Section 11.6 The logic in the IRT Workbook Disclosure Logic tab is flawed as it mirrors the acknowledgement requirements for non-urgent requests (2 business days) even though the Policy clearly states that a separate timeline is required for Urgent requests. We seem to have conveniently forgotten that Urgent requests have been defined narrowly in Section 3.10. (""Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure" are limited to circumstances that pose an imminent threat to life, serious bodily injury, critical infrastructure, or child exploitation in cases where disclosure of the data is necessary in combatting or addressing this threat. Critical infrastructure means the physical and cyber systems that are vital in that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on economic security or public safety.) A two business day maximum response time (as currently defined) would mean that a compliant response could take 3 (or more!) calendar days depending on weekends and holidays and the like. If we all agree that Urgent requests will only be used as defined in Section 3.10, then any maximum response time more than 24 hours renders useless the concept of an "Urgent Request". This seems unacceptable (and dangerous!) to me. Section 10 In my OneDoc comment of June 14 - I suggested new first paragraph at the end of the section must be removed. We must not add RDAP technical implementation details into a policy document - this is a terrible and unuseful idea. Here is my original comment as an FYI - "The reason we are debating the use of these words is because we seem to be assuming a particular "data element delivery" technology. The policy, and this doc, should be technology agnostic. In terms of this doc the terms "shown" and "displayed" are appropriate (it describes the policy). Any detail about how a particular technology should be used (e.g. "must be blank" or "must be null" or "must not be included") is inappropriate for this doc and should be included in the RDAP profile doc. Based on that the additional text added should be removed." Regards, Alex ___________ Alex Deacon Cole Valley Consulting alex@colevalleyconsulting.com<mailto:alex@colevalleyconsulting.com> +1.415.488.6009 This information is supplied in confidence by the NCA. The NCA is not listed as a Public Authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Any information supplied by, or relating to, the NCA is also subject to an absolute exemption. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under data protection legislation. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the NCA FOI single point of contact, by email on StatutoryDisclosureTeam@nca.gov.uk. All email sent and received by the NCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by NCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. Email may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within the NCA, on authority from the Director General or their Deputy for analysis. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible.