From mike at haven2.com Tue Dec 3 12:46:54 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:46:54 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Waivers of GNSO operating procedures Message-ID: <85CCE915-8A92-4747-BDE9-57AA21447FB7@haven2.com> there's nothing like an upcoming meeting to focus the mind. i too would like to apologize for this last-minute post. Marie-Laure was all over this and i? um? wasn't. sorry about that. anyway, here's a summary of the email thread between Marie-Laure and me. i agree with Marie, it would be helpful to sharpen up the problem-statement a bit before we dive into describing the solution. mikey The request: Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Which group do you represent? GNSO Council To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly other procedures Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures. An example is whether the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn?t empowered as chair by our rulebook to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the council I didn?t really - there isn?t really device in the rulebook to allow that to take place. So I personally I think that?s an area we should look at is the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?" What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed. A suggestion from Thomas Rickert Preferred path: Ask for the waiver if all councillors are present or represented. If waivers are granted, record them. That is the safest option. Alternate route in case not all councillors are present or represented: Ask whether councillors object - if someone objects - end of story If noone objects, go on record advising absent councillors to object to the Council leadership should they wish to do so. Marie-Laure's comments: Thomas proposal seems reasonable. I would add the following: -In both scenarios, it would be pertinent to specify whether the waiver has to be given orally or in a written form (email); -Scenario 2 (all councillors are not present) specify a deadline (maybe one or two weeks) when councillors who were not present are requested to object. -Scenario 2, specify that silence is interpreted as non-objection in case one of the councillors argue that they wanted to object but missed the emails where they were requested to object. -Key question that remain to be answered to : should this waiver be unlimited in time ? I think it shouldn?t to avoid abuses but it should at the same provide enough flexibility for the chair to address a particular issue with the councilors thus how can we reach a balance? should the waiver be specific as to what t is meant for ie. it should clearly specify what it is for in other word it should not become a permission to bypass any procedures under any circumstances. But I have been reading the background information that Julie sent (copied and pastel below) and I am wondering whether we are working on the right problem. It seems that from the text below, the problem highlighted by Jonathan was that he did not need us to establish rules for how waivers can be used but rather establishing guidelines as to when and how procedural rules can be bypassed when there is a waiver/exception. Which is quite different. Question for the group: Marie-Laure has the nub of it. what is the problem that the SCI is being asked to address? some discussion around this would be really helpful on today's call. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Tue Dec 10 22:52:09 2013 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:52:09 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: * the 2013 RAA; * the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); * IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and * IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript-irtp-d-20nov13-en[2][2][1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 186615 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michele at blacknight.com Tue Dec 10 23:03:33 2013 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:03:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: <20131210225302.75D6733C355@merlin.blacknight.ie> References: <20131210225302.75D6733C355@merlin.blacknight.ie> Message-ID: Caitlin / Tim One of the things that a couple of people have suggested is to rollout updates / changes that have an operational impact at fixed periods throughout the year .. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:52 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Cc: Tim Cole Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: * the 2013 RAA; * the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); * IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and * IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at haven2.com Tue Dec 10 23:16:08 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:16:08 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi Caitlin. what?? you don't follow what we're saying? humph. *I* don't follow what we're saying half the time. ;-) it would probably do us all some good to quickly schedule an IRTP C IRT call to work through the implications of all this. -- the IRTP-D conversations have been inconsistent about the scope of the delay to IRTP-C implementation. sometimes we say "all of it" sometimes we say "some of it" and when we say "some" we change which bits we're talking about. i'm glad to see that you're grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and saying "wait. what??" -- i'm not sure whether we need to pause *all* of C or just parts of it. that requires more thought -- maybe drag Marika into that thought process? -- we *have* uncovered a problem with the IRTP-C recommendation during IRTP-D. in C, we created this whole new kind of transfer category -- the inter REGISTRANT transfer. we wrote a lot about that process, but then punted on the dispute-resolution part of that and said "sure, TDRP can handle that." turns out that's more complicated than we thought and we're just wading through that discussion right now in D. it would be good to coordinate what we do in D with what's being done in the implementation of C. -- i'm starting to rethink the face to face meeting idea. i'd like to ponder than some more -- but the ICANN level of activity just went off the scale with all this Brazil stuff (on top of all the other stuff). we might want to schedule a few *long* teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face meetings and see where that takes us. a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive of schedules and lives. just a few random thoughts. i don't see how you people with day jobs get through all this ICANN stuff. it's pretty heavy-duty right now. thanks for your note. let's bat this around a little more and see where we land. mikey On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, > > I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. > > On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. > > Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: > > Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: > > the 2013 RAA; > > the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); > > IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and > > IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 > > To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. > > Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. > > Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marika.konings at icann.org Wed Dec 11 08:23:21 2013 From: marika.konings at icann.org (Marika Konings) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:23:21 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, As I've said before, I think we need to distinguish between implementation effective date and the development of the implementation plan. If I've understood James and Michele correctly, I think they are referring to the implementation effective date when they are talking about 'pausing' and considering rolling out changes at fixed points in the year. However, before being able to talk about pausing or when sometimes becomes in effect, I think we first need an actual implementation plan. As there were quite a number of issues that needed to be worked out in relation to IRTP Part C as part of the implementation discussions, I think there is still plenty to do before we even get to the stage of considering when this could/would become into effect. Also, by the time we have worked through those items it may become more clear whether or not any of the proposed recommendations of IRTP Part D need to be tied into the implementation effective date of IRTP Part C. Presumably having an actual implementation plan would also allow for more effective planning by contracted parties, even if the implementation effective date is for example a year out, as they can already anticipate what needs to happen in order for them to be ready by that date. As the IRTP Part C recommendations were adopted by the Board about a year ago, wouldn't it be nice if we could share a proposed implementation plan with the community by Singapore (even if it means that the actual changes wouldn't come into effect until later)? Best regards, Marika From: Mike O'Connor Date: Wednesday 11 December 2013 00:16 To: Caitlin Tubergen Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" , Tim Cole Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification hi Caitlin. what?? you don't follow what we're saying? humph. *I* don't follow what we're saying half the time. ;-) it would probably do us all some good to quickly schedule an IRTP C IRT call to work through the implications of all this. -- the IRTP-D conversations have been inconsistent about the scope of the delay to IRTP-C implementation. sometimes we say "all of it" sometimes we say "some of it" and when we say "some" we change which bits we're talking about. i'm glad to see that you're grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and saying "wait. what??" -- i'm not sure whether we need to pause *all* of C or just parts of it. that requires more thought -- maybe drag Marika into that thought process? -- we *have* uncovered a problem with the IRTP-C recommendation during IRTP-D. in C, we created this whole new kind of transfer category -- the inter REGISTRANT transfer. we wrote a lot about that process, but then punted on the dispute-resolution part of that and said "sure, TDRP can handle that." turns out that's more complicated than we thought and we're just wading through that discussion right now in D. it would be good to coordinate what we do in D with what's being done in the implementation of C. -- i'm starting to rethink the face to face meeting idea. i'd like to ponder than some more -- but the ICANN level of activity just went off the scale with all this Brazil stuff (on top of all the other stuff). we might want to schedule a few *long* teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face meetings and see where that takes us. a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive of schedules and lives. just a few random thoughts. i don't see how you people with day jobs get through all this ICANN stuff. it's pretty heavy-duty right now. thanks for your note. let's bat this around a little more and see where we land. mikey On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, > > I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los > Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the > effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the > transcript for ease of reference. > > On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation > efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. > I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During > our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to > finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange > that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light > of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. > > Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay > the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we > could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points > below to consider: > > Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new > contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the > pipeline including but not limited to: > > * the 2013 RAA; > > * the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); > > * IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and > > * IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 > > To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an > implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles > more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate > into their business models. > > Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations > of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending > that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial > to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have > extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. > > Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please > let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January > or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I > just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5056 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Sun Dec 15 13:19:29 2013 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 07:19:29 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BBA7DB5-8B37-4D4B-9408-F6DB4AAC7BC0@haven2.com> hi Marika, sorry this reply took so long. i've gotten overloaded and am working to get that fixed. meanwhile, response-time has slowed. i completely support your thoughts, and (since they're overloaded too) i'll add that i bet James and Michele would be OK with this approach as well. a key component of all this is figuring out how IRTP-C is going to be implemented. that would have the added benefit of providing more clarity to the IRTP-D efforts around the Registrant's access to the TDRP. so. i'm willing to help figure this out. but i'm not clear how we're organized. do we have a project leader? is there a charter that describes the work that needs to be done, who's going to do what, by when, etc? where can i help during the course of that work? it would definitely be nice to have a plan in place by Singapore, since we're also trying to have an IRTP-D draft done by then and the IRTP-C implementation approach informs the IRTP-D work. mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:23 AM, Marika Konings wrote: > Hi All, > > As I've said before, I think we need to distinguish between implementation effective date and the development of the implementation plan. If I've understood James and Michele correctly, I think they are referring to the implementation effective date when they are talking about 'pausing' and considering rolling out changes at fixed points in the year. However, before being able to talk about pausing or when sometimes becomes in effect, I think we first need an actual implementation plan. As there were quite a number of issues that needed to be worked out in relation to IRTP Part C as part of the implementation discussions, I think there is still plenty to do before we even get to the stage of considering when this could/would become into effect. Also, by the time we have worked through those items it may become more clear whether or not any of the proposed recommendations of IRTP Part D need to be tied into the implementation effective date of IRTP Part C. Presumably having an actual implementation plan would also allow for more effective planning by contracted parties, even if the implementation effective date is for example a year out, as they can already anticipate what needs to happen in order for them to be ready by that date. As the IRTP Part C recommendations were adopted by the Board about a year ago, wouldn't it be nice if we could share a proposed implementation plan with the community by Singapore (even if it means that the actual changes wouldn't come into effect until later)? > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Wednesday 11 December 2013 00:16 > To: Caitlin Tubergen > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" , Tim Cole > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification > > hi Caitlin. > > what?? you don't follow what we're saying? humph. *I* don't follow what we're saying half the time. ;-) > > it would probably do us all some good to quickly schedule an IRTP C IRT call to work through the implications of all this. > > -- the IRTP-D conversations have been inconsistent about the scope of the delay to IRTP-C implementation. sometimes we say "all of it" sometimes we say "some of it" and when we say "some" we change which bits we're talking about. i'm glad to see that you're grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and saying "wait. what??" > > -- i'm not sure whether we need to pause *all* of C or just parts of it. that requires more thought -- maybe drag Marika into that thought process? > > -- we *have* uncovered a problem with the IRTP-C recommendation during IRTP-D. in C, we created this whole new kind of transfer category -- the inter REGISTRANT transfer. we wrote a lot about that process, but then punted on the dispute-resolution part of that and said "sure, TDRP can handle that." turns out that's more complicated than we thought and we're just wading through that discussion right now in D. it would be good to coordinate what we do in D with what's being done in the implementation of C. > > -- i'm starting to rethink the face to face meeting idea. i'd like to ponder than some more -- but the ICANN level of activity just went off the scale with all this Brazil stuff (on top of all the other stuff). we might want to schedule a few *long* teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face meetings and see where that takes us. a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive of schedules and lives. > > just a few random thoughts. i don't see how you people with day jobs get through all this ICANN stuff. it's pretty heavy-duty right now. > > thanks for your note. let's bat this around a little more and see where we land. > > mikey > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > >> Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, >> >> I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. >> >> On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. >> >> Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: >> >> Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: >> >> the 2013 RAA; >> >> the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); >> >> IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and >> >> IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 >> >> To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. >> >> Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. >> >> Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Caitlin Tubergen >> Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager >> ICANN >> >> >> > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3630 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Glen at icann.org Sun Dec 29 17:17:55 2013 From: Glen at icann.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Glen_de_Saint_G=E9ry?=) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 09:17:55 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Holiday card Message-ID: [cid:578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466.png Type: image/png Size: 217047 bytes Desc: 578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: holiday-card-650.jpg.jpeg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46072 bytes Desc: holiday-card-650.jpg.jpeg URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: