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

[Chris Pelling]

I agree with Theo regarding side notes as we seem to wish to push on the comment period +1


Sorry for shortness, as on mobile.


Sent from Chris on the move...






On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM +0100, "gtheo" <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:





Hi Dennis,

Yes, we agreed to move in parralel. I kind hoped we moved further with 
that GNSO memo though.
The conflict between local WHOIS is still lingering around like Volker 
mentioned.

If we are going to move into the comment period draft wise then I would 
like to see side notes that we did not deal with the GNSO memo and we 
did not deal with WHOIS conflicts and local law.

And I kinda hoped you guys would have checked what the correct procedure 
is as Alan pointed out. Do we go to ICANN legal first or do we go 
straight to GNSO. I am in favor of going straight to the GNSO, this is 
above our pay grade here.

For the rest no problems.

Theo




Dennis Chang schreef op 2016-10-03 06:56 PM:
> Thanks Chris for following through on your action regarding the
> Registrar’s request for the alternative solution.
> Since your email to the IRT satisfies the triggers for the “request”
> in section 2.2,
> We can simplify the policy by combining 2.2 with 2.1 using the same 
> date.
> Btw, 1 August 2017 provides the 6-month duration that Marc had
> requested for development.
> 
> Below if my proposed change.
> 
> From:
> 2.1.	Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism by 1 August 2017
> for registrars to migrate registration data for Existing Domain Names
> (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick).
> 2.2.	Registry Operator MUST upon request provide an alternative bulk
> transfer mechanism by 1 February 2018 for registrars to migrate data
> for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick).  The
> request MUST be made by 1 August 2017.
> 
> To:
> 2.1.	Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism and an alternative
> bulk transfer mechanism by 1 August 2017 for registrars to migrate
> registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from
> Thin to Thick).
> 
> 
> As for your question about the draft privacy memo to GNSO Council, the
> IRT had agreed the implementation project will continue in parallel to
> any activity related to the memo.  This was agreed upon when the
> subject was broached at the Helsinki ICANN meeting and again in
> subsequent meetings.  Our plan to continue with the implementation
> work including the Public Comment has not changed. It is the goal of
> our implementation team to press forward as best we can to meet the 1
> February 2017 Announcement Date per the project schedule we’ve agreed
> upon.
> 
> Thanks for your support and look forward to our meeting tommorrow.
> Dennis Chang
> 
> On 10/3/16, 5:11 AM, "gtheo" <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks Chris, for posting on the RrSG distribution list and engage 
> with
>     our members.
> 
>     Theo
> 
>     Chris Pelling schreef op 2016-10-02 01:46 PM:
>     > 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
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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/20161003/c109955a/attachment-0001.html>