<html><body><div><p dir="auto" style=" text-align: left; margin-top: 25px; margin-bottom: 25px; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: black; background-color: white ">I agree with Theo regarding side notes as we seem to wish to push on the comment period +1</p>
<p dir="auto" style=" text-align: left; margin-top: 25px; margin-bottom: 25px; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: black; background-color: white ">Sorry for shortness, as on mobile.</p>
<p dir="auto" style=" text-align: left; margin-top: 25px; margin-bottom: 25px; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: black; background-color: white ">Sent from Chris on the move...<br>
</p>
<br><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM +0100, "gtheo" <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">gtheo@xs4all.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
</div><br><div>Hi Dennis,
<br>
<br>Yes, we agreed to move in parralel. I kind hoped we moved further with
<br>that GNSO memo though.
<br>The conflict between local WHOIS is still lingering around like Volker
<br>mentioned.
<br>
<br>If we are going to move into the comment period draft wise then I would
<br>like to see side notes that we did not deal with the GNSO memo and we
<br>did not deal with WHOIS conflicts and local law.
<br>
<br>And I kinda hoped you guys would have checked what the correct procedure
<br>is as Alan pointed out. Do we go to ICANN legal first or do we go
<br>straight to GNSO. I am in favor of going straight to the GNSO, this is
<br>above our pay grade here.
<br>
<br>For the rest no problems.
<br>
<br>Theo
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Dennis Chang schreef op 2016-10-03 06:56 PM:
<br>> Thanks Chris for following through on your action regarding the
<br>> Registrar’s request for the alternative solution.
<br>> Since your email to the IRT satisfies the triggers for the “request”
<br>> in section 2.2,
<br>> We can simplify the policy by combining 2.2 with 2.1 using the same
<br>> date.
<br>> Btw, 1 August 2017 provides the 6-month duration that Marc had
<br>> requested for development.
<br>>
<br>> Below if my proposed change.
<br>>
<br>> From:
<br>> 2.1. Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism by 1 August 2017
<br>> for registrars to migrate registration data for Existing Domain Names
<br>> (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick).
<br>> 2.2. Registry Operator MUST upon request provide an alternative bulk
<br>> transfer mechanism by 1 February 2018 for registrars to migrate data
<br>> for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick). The
<br>> request MUST be made by 1 August 2017.
<br>>
<br>> To:
<br>> 2.1. Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism and an alternative
<br>> bulk transfer mechanism by 1 August 2017 for registrars to migrate
<br>> registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from
<br>> Thin to Thick).
<br>>
<br>>
<br>> As for your question about the draft privacy memo to GNSO Council, the
<br>> IRT had agreed the implementation project will continue in parallel to
<br>> any activity related to the memo. This was agreed upon when the
<br>> subject was broached at the Helsinki ICANN meeting and again in
<br>> subsequent meetings. Our plan to continue with the implementation
<br>> work including the Public Comment has not changed. It is the goal of
<br>> our implementation team to press forward as best we can to meet the 1
<br>> February 2017 Announcement Date per the project schedule we’ve agreed
<br>> upon.
<br>>
<br>> Thanks for your support and look forward to our meeting tommorrow.
<br>> Dennis Chang
<br>>
<br>> On 10/3/16, 5:11 AM, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote:
<br>>
<br>> Thanks Chris, for posting on the RrSG distribution list and engage
<br>> with
<br>> our members.
<br>>
<br>> Theo
<br>>
<br>> Chris Pelling schreef op 2016-10-02 01:46 PM:
<br>> > Good afternoon all,
<br>> >
<br>> > First and foremost we have had ten registrars (including myself)
<br>> > interested in the alternative solution, so day one there will be
<br>> at
<br>> > least 1 triggering it - as that will be me.
<br>> > This being just the RrSG folks, once ICANN reach out to all
<br>> registrar
<br>> > from GDD, I am positive you will find more. But, as mentioned - I
<br>> have
<br>> > had active requests for the alternative to be created.
<br>> >
<br>> > Further questions:
<br>> >
<br>> > 1. The Verisign/GNSO memo, does this need to go directly to GNSO,
<br>> or,
<br>> > via ICANN legal first, I assume this will happen before the
<br>> public
<br>> > comment period?
<br>> >
<br>> > 2. Alan G. said that a legal review by ICANN legal is needed (I
<br>> > mentioned to include EU lawyers) because the original legal
<br>> review in
<br>> > 2015 did not include Safe Harbor, nor contemplating that Safe
<br>> Harbor
<br>> > would be invalidated, where are we on this and I assume this will
<br>> > happen before the public comment period?
<br>> >
<br>> > 3. Implementation notes state there is a procedure for handling
<br>> whois
<br>> > conflicts. However, the current method for handling WHOIS
<br>> conflicts is
<br>> > not working, and the WHOIS IAG version is at the GNSO and still
<br>> does
<br>> > not include an effective procedure as EU privacy regulators are
<br>> not
<br>> > giving statements to trigger the procedure. So this kind of sits
<br>> at a
<br>> > stalemate, is ICANN going to remove this? (I would assume they
<br>> can't,
<br>> > but we do need more info/guidance)
<br>> >
<br>> > The above points 1 and 2, will these happen before the public
<br>> comment
<br>> > period or after? Please note if you state afterwards, we are all
<br>> > potentially sitting here wasting time, as once those 2 legals
<br>> come
<br>> > back, it is more than likely we will all end up reviewing those
<br>> and
<br>> > going for a second public comment period based on new findings
<br>> and
<br>> > changes to existing work - I am just trying to save time here
<br>> (and
<br>> > everyone's sanity) :-)
<br>> >
<br>> > Kind regards,
<br>> >
<br>> > Chris
<br>> > _______________________________________________
<br>> > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
<br>> > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
<br>> > <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt</a>
<br>
<br></div></body></html>