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

Wed Aug 10 18:50:39 UTC 2016

I agree with Roger.

I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress 
expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be 
public?

Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will 
registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer 
your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made 
public, though I am open input.

Thanks,

Theo

On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a 
> good idea.  Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the 
> total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the 
> registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in 
> percentage terms?   These numbers should also be made public 
> periodically.
>
> *image001*
>
> *Steven J. Metalitz *|***Partner, through his professional corporation*
>
> T: 202.355.7902 |met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>**
>
> *Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp**LLP*|*www.msk.com <http://www.msk.com/>*
>
> 1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
>
> *_THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY 
> FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED 
> RECIPIENTS._**THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, 
> AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS 
> MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY 
> REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS 
> STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR 
> TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM 
> YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.*
>
> *From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Roger D Carney
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM
> *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - 
> Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
>
> Good Morning,
>
> The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion 
> and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that 
> starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a 
> weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly 
> ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a 
> consolidated report showing Registrar progression.
>
> The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are 
> thick.
>
> Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at 
> the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry.
>
> Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar 
> Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making 
> noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations.
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
> *From:*gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org> 
> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Fabien Betremieux
> *Sent:* Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM
> *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - 
> Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
>
> 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 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of theo 
> geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>>
> *Date: *Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM
> *To: *"gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
> <mailto: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 week’s 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.org
>     <mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160810/1bcf37eb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160810/1bcf37eb/attachment-0001.gif>