From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Tue Jan 7 00:19:45 2014 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:19:45 -0800 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: <5BBA7DB5-8B37-4D4B-9408-F6DB4AAC7BC0@haven2.com> References:

<5BBA7DB5-8B37-4D4B-9408-F6DB4AAC7BC0@haven2.com> Message-ID: Hi All, Happy New Year! I hope everyone is well rested and ready to dive back into IRTP-C. (Ha!) There seems to still be some lingering confusion in regards to IRTP C implementation. I will fully admit that I am one of the confused parties. In the spirit of moving things along, I scheduled a call this week so that we can decide how we would like to move this forward. We do not currently have a "who will do what, by when" type of implementation plan, but I would like to start working that out with all of you. Given many of your extensive expertise in other WGs and IRTs as well as your knowledge of how the discussions in IRTP-D color our efforts in IRTP-C, I would appreciate your help in putting this plan together. Please see the call-in details below: Thursday, 9 January at 17:00 UTC. Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/raaeducation/ If you have any suggestions for anything you would like addressed during the call, please let me know. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN From: Mike O'Connor Date: Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:19 AM To: Marika Konings Cc: Caitlin Tubergen , "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" , Tim Cole Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification 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: 5050 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Tue Jan 7 02:04:37 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:04:37 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification In-Reply-To: References:

<5BBA7DB5-8B37-4D4B-9408-F6DB4AAC7BC0@haven2.com> Message-ID: <1F29BFC0-9237-4758-90E1-7FA0B25BB3DF@haven2.com> works for me. is this project part of Amy Blivins? portfolio? you might want to add her to the gang. m On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Hi All, > > Happy New Year! I hope everyone is well rested and ready to dive back into IRTP-C. (Ha!) > > There seems to still be some lingering confusion in regards to IRTP C implementation. I will fully admit that I am one of the confused parties. In the spirit of moving things along, I scheduled a call this week so that we can decide how we would like to move this forward. We do not currently have a "who will do what, by when" type of implementation plan, but I would like to start working that out with all of you. Given many of your extensive expertise in other WGs and IRTs as well as your knowledge of how the discussions in IRTP-D color our efforts in IRTP-C, I would appreciate your help in putting this plan together. > > Please see the call-in details below: > > Thursday, 9 January at 17:00 UTC. > > Adigo code: 28462745 > > Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/raaeducation/ > > If you have any suggestions for anything you would like addressed during the call, please let me know. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:19 AM > To: Marika Konings > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen , "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" , Tim Cole > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification > > 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.) > 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 mike at haven2.com Thu Jan 9 18:03:57 2014 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:03:57 -0600 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-D -- tentative use-cases that we've identified In-Reply-To: References:

<5BBA7DB5-8B37-4D4B-9408-F6DB4AAC7BC0@haven2.com> Message-ID: <7E2483AC-89DD-46AF-A724-ADCA17814746@haven2.com> hi all, one of the actions i took out of today?s call was to push along the list of use-cases that the IRTP-D gang has come up with. these are still under revision, so don?t treat them as final. but they give a sense of what we?re thinking mikey WG Scenarios A Registrar is not authorizing a transfer-out, or is not providing an auth-info code in a timely way A Registrar is not participating in resolving an issue with a transfer. Several attempts to engage have been made by the other Registrar, including a message the Emergency Action Contact, to no avail. +- Registrar not unlocking a name or allowing the registrant to unlock the domain themselves Where the FOA's are not sent to the two transfer contacts The Administrative Contact authorises a transfer but the Registrant is challenging that When auth-code is sent to wrong whois contact, to the account holder that sometimes is not listed in the whois Two registrants are disputing the right to a domain name after an inter-reigistrar transfer -- registrars went through the right process and have no further information to add. Both registrants were acknowledged at some point in time as being registrants. Both of their names have appeared in Whois, but they now disagree as to who the true registrant is. +- Administrative and Registrant contacts are spread across two parts of an organization and there's a disagreement between them as to the validity of a transfer Different contacts or departments within an organization have conflicts +- A registrant-claimant approaches a Registrar claiming that they are the registrant rather than the Proxy Service Provider to whom the domain name is registered Maybe refer this edge case to the PPS WG? Proxy is acting as an agent Maybe a subset of the "confusion of roles within an organization" case +- One registrant is completely unknown to the registrars A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer for whom they build a website. They are challenged by their customer who claims to be the registrant but has never appeared in any Whois record at any time. A website designer registers a domain under their name on behalf of a customer, and then goes out of business - causing domain to expire, leaving registrants to resolve the issue with a registrar who has never heard of them. +- Registrant says "I'm the owner, but I'm not in control of the name, here's why, help me get it back" Two business partners split and claim rights on the domain name Contract disputes sometimes enter into this Company goes through an ownership/structure change -- the original owner tries to retain the name +- Privacy services -- losing registrar doesn't remove privacy service, the gaining registrar can't validate the identity of the person registering the name This is also the case for any other entity that's providing the privacy service -- resellers or other 3rd parties for example +- Somebody registers a domain name as part of their job, does it under their own personal account, they and company part ways, which trumps? There is a spectrum here -- size of organization Major manufacturer - clearer case Small company (just a few people) - slides into the personal/contract dispute Person works at the company -- maybe in the corporate account -- their contact info is listed -- they have left the company and access to the account and controlling email address is no longer possible +- A claim is made -- but it is not clear at the outset that this is a private party dispute -- it looks like a transfer problem at the beginning -- it's only through working through the Registrars that the truth will out. It's not always clear at the outset that a given complaint is valid under the IRTP Once the complainant has provided details, it is then possible to determine validity Understanding changes during the course of the dispute process -- some prove valid, some are discovered to be invalid 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: