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

Thu Aug 11 15:56:38 UTC 2016

Hi Steve, 

I am still not overly happy about the "registrar" being named. Anything over and the simple basic numbers of the "TLD" like Roger suggested is not needed in my honest opionon and will simply be used as a stick against a registrar. 

Only ICANN can swing the stick, as per the RAA contract between those 2 parties. I am lucky in that the platform we use will simply do it automatically, some other registrar may not be as lucky and ousting them in a public forum is not the best way to make someone do something, whereas ICANN flexing its compliance muscles generally gets things moving :) 

Kind regards, 

Chris 

From: "Steven Metalitz" <met at msk.com> 
To: "chris" <chris at netearth.net> 
Cc: "theo geurts" <gtheo at xs4all.nl>, "Roger D Carney" <rcarney at godaddy.com>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 15:27:41 
Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick 

Chris, to be clear, I think I agree with you about percentages --- “ as of X date, Registrar Y has migrated ZZ% of its .com registrations to thick.” I don’t think it is necessary to make the number of registrations public. 

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation 

T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com 

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris at netearth.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:22 AM 
To: Metalitz, Steven 
Cc: theo geurts; Roger D Carney; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick 

HI Steve, 

I am sorry Steve but I still disagree with you. If it was to be a percentage of total domains per TLD and how many have migrated from thin to thick then fine, but, I for one would not want company confidential information to be public, to me the exact number of domains in a TLD is company confidential information. 

Nor within the RAA does it state I have to publicly provide this information. 

It would be similar to me asking you Steve how many clients you have and based on percentages please specify how many are 1-50 employees, 51-250 employees etc etc 

However, if it were total domains in the given TLD, say 120,000,000 and 36% have migrated to far from thin to thick - I would be happier with that idea. 

Kind regards, 

Chris 

From: "Steven Metalitz" < met at msk.com > 
To: "theo geurts" < gtheo at xs4all.nl >, "Roger D Carney" < rcarney at godaddy.com >, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 14:46:28 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick 

Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. 

First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo’s e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. 

Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. 

Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. 

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation 

T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com 

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: theo geurts [ mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl ] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM 
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick 

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. 

Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation 

T: 202.355.7902 | met at msk.com 

Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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 ] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux 
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM 
To: 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 > 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: 

BQ_BEGIN

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 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 

BQ_END

_______________________________________________ 
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/20160811/5ddce827/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2772 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20160811/5ddce827/image001-0001.gif>