<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks Lars<div><br></div><div>That does reflect the discussions we have had</div><div><br></div><div>Holly<br><div><div>On 10/02/2014, at 7:45 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Dear Holly, dear all,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for pointing this out. Would it work for you/the Group if we included the following paragraph into Section 5.2.4.3 (Recommendation Charter Question D):</div><div><br></div><div>In combination with the improvements to the ICANN website, the Working Group recommends that ICANN Compliance clearly indicates on its FAQ/help section under which circumstances it can assist registrants with transfer disputes. This should include situations when registrants can ask ICANN Compliance to insist on registrars taking action on behalf of said registrant because ICANN policies may not have been complied with by one or several registrars. </div><div><br></div><div>In addition, the draft agenda for today's call below.</div><div>Best wishes, Lars</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><b>Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 10 February 2013, 16.00 UTC</b></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>1. Roll Call / SOI Updates</div><div><br></div><div>2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report</div><div>- Recommendations on p. 22 onwards</div><div><br></div><div>3. If time: First read through the Use Cases (Annex C)</div><div><br></div><div>4. Next steps / confirm next meeting </div></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Holly Raiche <<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:25 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Lars Hoffmann <<a href="mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org">lars.hoffmann@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-irtpd@icann.org">gnso-irtpd@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-irtpd@icann.org">gnso-irtpd@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update<br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Hi Lars
<div><br></div><div>I think we went further on the registrants' issue. Apart from an improved ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take action on behalf of the registrant
when an ICANN policy/requirement has not been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included in the FAQ/website</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Holly</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div><div>Dear all,</div><div>Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report.</div><div>I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on changes to WG Observations and Recommendations – based on the outcome of Monday's call. I have not yet
combined the sections of Issue Description and WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for the next update.</div><div>Best wishes,</div><div>Lars</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div><br></div></div><span><GNSO Initial Report V2.docx></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>