[Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary

Thu Nov 13 04:26:51 UTC 2014

All,

For ease of reference, I have made some comments in the draft Steve circulated. 

My sense is that registrars would be reluctant to provide IRTP related data due to commercial sensitivity. However, a lot of data and insights can be gained from registries’ monthly reports and ICANN Compliance complaints intake system (which has undergone a number of iterations in recent years with more data mining and reporting capabilities).

Some registries also have the capability and willingness to write additional codes to generate specifically requested data (out of their registrations systems). Considering the uneven distribution of registrations and transfers among the gTLDs today, this is important to keep in mind. 

FYI - When I was with ICANN Compliance, I designed and conducted the first and the only IRTP Audit (see https://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/irtp-audit-report-13dec10-en.pdf). 

Kind regards,

Pam

From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:04 PM
To: 'Andrew Merriam'; 'Steve Chan'
Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the response.  

As for your first point, you are correct in that this use case request relies more on Registrars.  However, it does include a hint of data from Registries, albeit data this is contractually required to be sent to ICANN on a monthly basis and ultimately publicly available.  While the WG is focusing on the IRTP use case because it is the most tangible “real world” example, the WG should also still consider the other draft use cases such as the third one where perhaps the “Subsequent Round WG” or PDPs that may flow out of its efforts might be more Registry specific.  

In terms of your second point, I think the same principles may apply where some data requested may not be a contractual obligation and if Registries were to accept such a request, a determination in how it might be paid for and subsequently aggregated would be similar to Registrar concerns.

If the WG does consider distributing the IRTP use case across the SGs/Cs, I think the input we receive will better inform our other use cases as well.

I hope this helps.  B

Berry A. Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers

720.839.5735

mail at berrycobb.com

@berrycobb

From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Merriam
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 15:13
To: Steve Chan
Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary

Thanks, Steve. I just want to note that the IRTP example relies heavily on registrar reporting. Not being a registrar, I don't know how much of this information is actually currently tracked or will be tracked under the new IRTP. That would be helpful context and I'd certainly look to those closer to the registrar end of things to provide an assessment what fulfillment of such a request would entail. 

As far as Registry concerns, we outsource most of our technical and database requirements, as most new TLD registries do. I am not aware that our use of any reporting function comes at a higher cost but that could be a concern for some folks. I don't think there is anything to be done with this on either side but am merely brainstorming how fulfillment of such a request would work..

Thanks

A

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:

Dear WG Members,

Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week’s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made. 

In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well.

Best,

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan at icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886 <tel:%2B1.310.301.3886> 
mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <tel:%2B1.310.339.4410> 

tel: +1.310.301.5800 <tel:%2B1.310.301.5800> 

fax: +1.310.823.8649 <tel:%2B1.310.823.8649> 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list
Gnso-dmpm-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg

-- 

Andrew Merriam

Business Development Coordinator

Top Level Design, LLC

tldesign.co

505.238.9166

@AndMerriam

skype: andrewpmerriam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-dmpm-wg/attachments/20141113/41c39c4b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DMPM_Metrics_Request_UseCase_IRTP_v0 12+PL.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 26962 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-dmpm-wg/attachments/20141113/41c39c4b/DMPM_Metrics_Request_UseCase_IRTP_v012PL-0001.docx>