[Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments.

[Chris Pelling]

Hi Marc, 

That's quite simple - 1 of them will be me. I will enquire with the others if they would like to engage at this time. I did reach out to you last week off list re this exact point but had no repy. 

Let me do that email to them now. Feel free to get them to reach out to me at their earliest convenience. 


Kind regards, 

Chris 


From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson at verisign.com> 
To: "chris" <chris at netearth.net>, "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang at icann.org> 
Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Sent: Monday, 3 October, 2016 19:55:00 
Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 



Chris, 



Would you be willing to put me in touch with some/all of the registrars interested in the alternative solution? We have a couple of ideas on how we would like to implement this, but it would be helpful to talk to people who would actually be using this solution. I could facilitate but I’m looking to get the person who will be writing the requirements/use cases in touch with the actual users. 



Thank you, 

Marc 










From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling 
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:46 AM 
To: Dennis Chang 
Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt at icann.org 
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 





Good afternoon all, 





First and foremost we have had ten registrars (including myself) interested in the alternative solution, so day one there will be at least 1 triggering it - as that will be me. 


This being just the RrSG folks, once ICANN reach out to all registrar from GDD, I am positive you will find more. But, as mentioned - I have had active requests for the alternative to be created. 





Further questions: 






1. The Verisign/GNSO memo, does this need to go directly to GNSO, or, via ICANN legal first, I assume this will happen before the public comment period? 

2. Alan G. said that a legal review by ICANN legal is needed (I mentioned to include EU lawyers) because the original legal review in 2015 did not include Safe Harbor, nor contemplating that Safe Harbor would be invalidated, where are we on this and I assume this will happen before the public comment period? 




3. Implementation notes state there is a procedure for handling whois conflicts. However, the current method for handling WHOIS conflicts is not working, and the WHOIS IAG version is at the GNSO and still does not include an effective procedure as EU privacy regulators are not giving statements to trigger the procedure. So this kind of sits at a stalemate, is ICANN going to remove this? (I would assume they can't, but we do need more info/guidance) 

The above points 1 and 2, will these happen before the public comment period or after? Please note if you state afterwards, we are all potentially sitting here wasting time, as once those 2 legals come back, it is more than likely we will all end up reviewing those and going for a second public comment period based on new findings and changes to existing work - I am just trying to save time here (and everyone's sanity) :-) 






Kind regards, 

Chris 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt/attachments/20161003/aad79a03/attachment.html>