From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 1 18:12:40 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:12:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting Message-ID: Please reserve this time as a placeholder for our next call. More information to follow soon. --------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num=1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2474 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 1 18:12:56 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 18:12:56 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting Message-ID: <81cbf4338d77466c83bcd07efdb28537@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Please reserve this time as a placeholder for our next call. More information to follow soon. --------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num=1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2474 bytes Desc: not available URL: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Tue Jul 7 19:18:12 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 21:18:12 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTPC CORP and spam reduction measurements. Message-ID: <740592197.2692565.1436296692673.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Hi all, I think we need to take a few steps back when it comes to the drafted language here when it comes to the change of registrant procedure, unless i am proven wrong. There are several registrars that offer spam reduction measurements by having a unique email address listed in the whois, usually in conjuction with the domain name that gets changed when there is a whois lookup or set a certain interval. This service is not only related to P/P services but also offered as a paid or non paid service to reduce spam by Registrars. If a change of the email address remains a material change then we are actually throwing above services under the bus here, or at a bare minimum create alot of overhead for the registrants and there is potential abuse lying around the corner. Personally i would not be able to sell an ICANN policy that plays into the hands of spammers and potentially increases spam. That would look very bad in my eyes and some folks would love to spin this and it will not be in favor of ICANN and the WG. Few options here to address the issue. Go back to the GNSO regarding the material change, i totally do NOT favor that option. Or throw some services under the bus that we know that are out there with the risk of throwing other services under the bus we did not identify yet, but heavilly rely on changing the email address for certain reasons or other data that is considered a material change. Full disclosure, the Registrar i work for does offer any of those services. Or remove the entire exchange of credentials part and go for a notification only procedure if there is a material change. This was discussed in December last year and i had the impression that was in scope of the recommendations of the WG. This would be in my opinion the best move and then we addressed alot of comments and we should be able to wrap this one up real quick as the rest of the policy is fine and mostly issue free. The above solution would also address the designated agent potential issues, I have not dived into that one, but I am sure we will run into issues with that one and lose alot of time again as parts need to be re-written. Thoughts ? Theo Geurts Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: support at realtimeregister.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 8 22:41:16 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:41:16 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Reminder: IRTP-C Call Thursday, 9 July Message-ID: Hi, Team. This is a friendly reminder that we have a call tomorrow, Thursday, 9 July at 1600 UTC. You should have received a calendar invite, but I have included the dial-in details below. We will continue to go over the public comments received. I have attached a copy of the draft policy. All recent changes are highlighted in yellow, and I added comments so that you can see which public comments prompted changes. You can refer to the attached public comment matrix. If you are unable to attend the call, please feel free to include comments via the list. Dial-in details below: Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num =1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 Please let me know if you have any questions. Best 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: Transfer Policy 8Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 129738 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Review Tool ? Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on IRTP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 127967 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 8 22:41:35 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:41:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting Message-ID: <126c3e3145f64fdbba2bec48a6b8a307@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Please reserve this time as a placeholder for our next call. More information to follow soon. --------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num=1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 3993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transfer Policy 8Jul.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 129738 bytes Desc: Transfer Policy 8Jul.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Public Comment Review Tool ? Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on IRTP.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 127967 bytes Desc: Public Comment Review Tool ? Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on IRTP.docx URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Thu Jul 9 17:14:47 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 17:14:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Message-ID: <1c9acdbc8d1a44b78207891fd6f19f5a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Please reserve this time as a placeholder for our next call. More information to follow soon. --------------------------------- Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num=1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2631 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Thu Jul 9 22:49:11 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 22:49:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call Message-ID: Hi, Team. Please save the date for our next Implementation Review Team call on Thursday, 16 July at 1600UTC. For the recording of today?s call, please use the following link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5l1f520ora/ I have attached the draft policy that we discussed during today?s call. A few of you mentioned that you would like to further tweak some sections, namely the definition of designated agent in 1(d) of the policy and the circumstances described in section 2.3. Please feel free to propose any edits on the list. If you would like one additional week, please let me know, and we can postpone next week?s call by one week (Thursday, 23 July). Thank you, all, for your participation today ? it was very helpful! Kind regards, Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transfer Policy 9Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Jul 10 12:42:50 2015 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:42:50 GMT Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Event invitation: IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: iCal-Request.ics Type: text/calendar Size: 4105 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Fri Jul 10 12:47:10 2015 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:47:10 -0500 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Event invitation: IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78E391EF-09EC-4CBC-8ECB-7DCBA9B65905@haven2.com> oh for Pete's sake. all i did was copy/paste the meeting into next week and my system decided to go invite you all. bah. please ignore this stupid message from my ding dang rippin' frippin calendar server. sorry about that, mike > On Jul 10, 2015, at 7:42 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote: > > CalMike has invited you to the event: IRTP-C Implementation Review Team Meeting, scheduled for July 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM (US/Pacific). To accept or decline this invitation, click the link below. > > > > > 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: 3569 bytes Desc: not available URL: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Mon Jul 13 12:28:53 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:28:53 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1013277497.3187540.1436790533391.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> A few quick comments. 3.2(a) is the part where the registrar gets consent and i assume the non consent if that is the case ? Regarding the notifications mentioned in 3.2(b) (iii) If consent was given in 3.2(a), then (iii) might throw a wrench into the process when the new registrant has not entered into agreement and forgets or refuses. The text in (i) sets a 24 hours window. And in my opinion this adds a layer of complexity. Same goes for (iv) and (v) and (vi). These shouldn't be in all cases part of a notification process. To ensure flexibillity i would suggest to rewrite 3.2 completly and make them a directive. Then a Registrar can determine based on it's business model and operational implementation to decide what goes where during the change of registrant process. To be clear, I am not suggesting the notifications should not be removed and or any of the above sections. It should part of a directive. And perhaps directive is the wrong word/term here, I am simply trying to find some balance here and I am aware this also affects parts of 3.1. As this was section was removed :" The Registrar should not provide the Change of Registrant Credential to the Account Holder unless the Account Holder and Prior Registrant are the same. In the event the Prior Registrant can no longer access its email address, phone number or address, the Registrar would not be limited to use of contact information on file in providing the Change of Registrant Credential". The reason for removing it is clear to me as the credential part is now part of the secure mechanism definition. However what we have created here is the situation that under all circumstances, provided it is a material change, triggers the change of registrant process. So the balance we tried to achieve a few months ago is gone, as you can no longer login to your registrar account to correct an email address. So we might want to circle back on this during the next call. Regarding the issue I brought up during the last call when it comes to privacy protect providers and or registrars offering spam reduction solutions. A Designated Agent could indeed be the solution. This would be part of the terms and conditions set by those agents between them and the registrants, read pre authorise. We need to come up with a solution regarding the notifications as part of the current procedure. As I can imagine that in certain specific situations you want to skip the notification part as updating the email address might be part of an automatic procedure and will generate alot of notifications and create confusion. I think with the above and Bob's comments from the last call we have a starting point to explore this designated agent role more. I think the process for Registrars should be low profile yet accountable. If we start to define the role too deep we will create a can of worms here with questions like, how long is the pre authorisation period etc etc. I don't think we should head that direction. Best Theo Van: "Caitlin Tubergen" Aan: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org, "Bob Mountain" Verzonden: Vrijdag 10 juli 2015 00:49:11 Onderwerp: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call Hi, Team. Please save the date for our next Implementation Review Team call on Thursday, 16 July at 1600UTC . For the recording of today?s call, please use the following link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5l1f520ora/ I have attached the draft policy that we discussed during today?s call. A few of you mentioned that you would like to further tweak some sections, namely the definition of designated agent in 1(d) of the policy and the circumstances described in section 2.3. Please feel free to propose any edits on the list. If you would like one additional week, please let me know, and we can postpone next week?s call by one week (Thursday, 23 July). Thank you, all, for your participation today ? it was very helpful! Kind regards, Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 15 17:58:11 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:58:11 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Reminder - IRTP-C IRP Call Thursday 16 July 1600 UTC Message-ID: Hi, Team. This is a kind reminder of the IRTP-C Implementation Review Team call scheduled for Thursday, 16 July at 1600UTC. Dial-in information is below: Link to Adobe Connect (with audio enabled):https://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ *Upon logging into Adobe Connect, a pop up window will provide you the option to Dial Out to your Phone. Enter your Phone Number* (Remember to change the Country Code if needed). After joining the call, as a courtesy to others and the presenters, please MUTE your phone. This can be done by selecting *6 on your keypad. To UNMUTE select *6 again. If you are Unable to log into Adobe Connect and can only join via phone: List of International Dial In Numbers:https://www.myrcplus.com/cnums.asp?bwebid=8369444&ppc=6458688446&num =1-719-457-6209 Participant Passcode: 6458688446 Thanks! Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN From: Caitlin Tubergen Date: Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 3:49 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" , Bob Mountain Subject: Follow-up from Implementation Review Team Call Hi, Team. Please save the date for our next Implementation Review Team call on Thursday, 16 July at 1600UTC. For the recording of today?s call, please use the following link: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5l1f520ora/ I have attached the draft policy that we discussed during today?s call. A few of you mentioned that you would like to further tweak some sections, namely the definition of designated agent in 1(d) of the policy and the circumstances described in section 2.3. Please feel free to propose any edits on the list. If you would like one additional week, please let me know, and we can postpone next week?s call by one week (Thursday, 23 July). Thank you, all, for your participation today ? it was very helpful! Kind regards, Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transfer Policy 9Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Fri Jul 17 00:21:37 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:21:37 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Message-ID: Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! 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: Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130850 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Fri Jul 24 02:33:53 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:33:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! 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: Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130850 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Tue Jul 28 18:52:41 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:52:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <822792782.649688.1438109561237.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Hiya's Personally speaking, I am good with a 6 month cycle. Then again, I been looking at this since November last year and had several team meetings at the office, and since we use the scrum methodology for a few years now we simply add this to a few sprints. For other Registrars I could imagine they need more time, not every Registrar is a member of the RrSG (sad but true) and then there is that huge blind spot called Asia. None of them where present during the WG or IRT, nor did we receive any comments from that region. Best, Theo Van: "Caitlin Tubergen" Aan: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Vrijdag 24 juli 2015 04:33:53 Onderwerp: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Tue Jul 28 18:58:01 2015 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:58:01 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Wed Jul 29 20:33:27 2015 From: caitlin.tubergen at icann.org (Caitlin Tubergen) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 20:33:27 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> Message-ID: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > Hi, Team. > > This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by > Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will > consider the text final. > > Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance > once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may1 > 5-en.pdf > 5-en.pdf> ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on > if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the > standard six-month cycle. > > As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you > have over the email list. > > Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin > > > > From: Caitlin Tubergen > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM > To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > Hi, Team. > > For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording > here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. > > I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a > result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. > > There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please > take a look at: > > (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). > > (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The > IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update > Whois information in the event of potential abuse). > > Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance > once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months > (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may1 > 5-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if > six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the > standard six month cycle. > > If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle > timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s > date. > > Thank you! > > 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: Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 130850 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mike at haven2.com Wed Jul 29 21:17:16 2015 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:17:16 -0500 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> Message-ID: looks fine from here. thanks! m > On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen wrote: > > Thanks, Michele. > > The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. > > As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. > > Many thanks, > > Caitlin > > > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM > To: Caitlin Tubergen > > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " > > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > Caitlin > > Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you > > Regards > > Michele > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Hosting & Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://www.mneylon.social > Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal > > On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: > >> Hi, Team. >> >> This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. >> >> Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. >> >> As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Caitlin >> >> >> From: Caitlin Tubergen > >> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM >> To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " > >> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing >> >> Hi, Team. >> >> For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . >> >> I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. >> >> There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: >> >> (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). >> >> (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). >> >> Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. >> >> If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. >> >> Thank you! >> >> 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: 3569 bytes Desc: not available URL: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Thu Jul 30 07:02:34 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:02:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> Message-ID: <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" , gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele at blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN BQ_END BQ_END 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: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jul 30 11:56:53 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 11:56:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Message-ID: I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a ?material change? by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I?m so far behind? J. From: > on behalf of Theo Geurts > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo ________________________________ Van: "Mike O'Connor" > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! 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: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Thu Jul 30 12:10:33 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:10:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Message-ID: <1147150983.738928.1438258233005.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Not sure. We discussed the draft here at the office and one of the developers asked me about it and I was not able to answer him. Theo Van: "James M. Bladel" Aan: "Theo Geurts" , "Mike O'Connor" Cc: "Caitlin Tubergen" , gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Donderdag 30 juli 2015 13:56:53 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a ?material change? by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I?m so far behind? J. From: < owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > on behalf of Theo Geurts < theo.geurts at firstfind.nl > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor < mike at haven2.com > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >, " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" < mike at haven2.com > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele at blacknight.com >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele at blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN BQ_END BQ_END 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: From mike at haven2.com Thu Jul 30 12:36:03 2015 From: mike at haven2.com (Mike O'Connor) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:36:03 -0500 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Message-ID: i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m > On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a ?material change? by the Registrar. Has this changed? > > Sorry I?m so far behind? > > J. > > From: > on behalf of Theo Geurts > > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 > To: Mike O'Connor > > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " > > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > It's looking pretty good, > > However i got a question. > > What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? > Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. > > I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. > Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. > > Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. > > Thank you. > > Theo > > > > > > > > > > > > > Van: "Mike O'Connor" > > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" > > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 > Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > looks fine from here. > > thanks! > > m > > On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: > Thanks, Michele. > > The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. > > As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. > > Many thanks, > > Caitlin > > > From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM > To: Caitlin Tubergen > > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " > > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > Caitlin > > Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you > > Regards > > Michele > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Hosting & Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://www.mneylon.social > Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal > > On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: > > Hi, Team. > > This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. > > Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. > > As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. > > Thank you! > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin > > > From: Caitlin Tubergen > > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM > To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " > > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing > > Hi, Team. > > For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . > > I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. > > There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: > > (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). > > (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). > > Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. > > If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. > > Thank you! > > 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: 3569 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jul 30 12:44:10 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:44:10 +0000 Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Message-ID: Not sure what the calendar has to do with anything. Like Mike, I thought we put this issue to bed months ago, so I?m surprised to see it still coming up. Thanks- J. From: Mike O'Connor > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:36 To: James Bladel > Cc: Theo Geurts >, Caitlin Tubergen >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel > wrote: I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a ?material change? by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I?m so far behind? J. From: > on behalf of Theo Geurts > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen >, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo ________________________________ Van: "Mike O'Connor" > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen > wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org" > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! 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: From theo.geurts at firstfind.nl Thu Jul 30 12:58:47 2015 From: theo.geurts at firstfind.nl (Theo Geurts) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:58:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing In-Reply-To: References: <27117CA3-4911-467D-AC88-A7EA8160A929@blacknight.com> <1505273666.718116.1438239754820.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Message-ID: <1725157241.743658.1438261127549.JavaMail.zimbra@firstfind.nl> Hi Mike, That's one way to look at it, after the session last Tuesday here at the office I was actually amazed there where not more questions i was not able to answer. And some folks here never seen the draft before, so there was a fresh set of eyes looking at it. I would call it a win. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" Aan: "James Bladel" Cc: "Theo Geurts" , "Caitlin Tubergen" , gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Donderdag 30 juli 2015 14:36:03 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel < jbladel at godaddy.com > wrote: I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a ?material change? by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I?m so far behind? J. From: < owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > on behalf of Theo Geurts < theo.geurts at firstfind.nl > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor < mike at haven2.com > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org >, " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" < mike at haven2.com > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele at blacknight.com >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m BQ_BEGIN On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder ? if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele at blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars? input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen at icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt at icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today?s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today?s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ?Designated Agent? in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today?s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN BQ_END BQ_END PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) BQ_END 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: