[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

[Fabien Betremieux]

Dear IRT Members,

As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential
measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage
Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to
thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures
they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others .

To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions:
* Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate
registration data
* Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have
done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC
* Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of
.ORG from thin to thick
Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ?

Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic.

Best Regards
Fabien

From:  <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts
<gtheo at xs4all.nl>
Date:  Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM
To:  "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition
Implementation Path Discussions

Thanks. Fabien,

I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is
also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an
effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with.

This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how
ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect
the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG.

Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are
passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200
Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal
with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration
time 24 months. 

Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything?

How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my
opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this.

Best, 

Theo Geurts


On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote:
> Dear IRT Members,
> 
> In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated
> scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week¹s
> meeting and over the mailing list since then.
> 
> We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the
> meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the
> scorecard.
> 
> Thank you for your attention
> -- 
> Fabien Betremieux
> Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager
> Global Domains Division, ICANN
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-im
> pl-thickwhois-rt



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160808/168c1182/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160808/168c1182/smime-0001.p7s>