<html><body><div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Totally agree with Joyce here - and it may well work out to be faster too.</div><div><br></div><div data-marker="__SIG_PRE__">Kind regards,<br><br>Chris</div><br><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com><br><b>To: </b>"gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org><br><b>Cc: </b>gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, 4 October, 2016 17:41:50<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments.<br></div><br><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">Theo,<br><br>If the procedure permits, go straight to the GNSO and let them go to ICANN <br>council if they have issues. It would be less hassle for us.<br><br>Joyce<br><br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl><br>To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org><br>Cc: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org><br>Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 3:09 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, <br>Alternative method and some comments.<br><br><br>> 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 did <br>> 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 straight <br>> to GNSO. I am in favor of going straight to the GNSO, this is above our <br>> 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 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 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 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 review <br>>> 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 conflicts <br>>> 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 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 come<br>>> > back, it is more than likely we will all end up reviewing those and<br>>> > going for a second public comment period based on new findings and<br>>> > changes to existing work - I am just trying to save time here (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>>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list<br>> Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<br>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list<br>Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<br></div></div></body></html>