[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] RE: Follow up from WG call this week

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Tue Jan 10 01:26:05 UTC 2017

Dear all,

This is just a brief note to add the staff perspective that it may indeed be more appropriate to first ensure that the registries in question do not object to our contacting their back end providers. We can include this query in the cover note to be sent accompanying the survey, and either request that registries feel free to have their providers give us the feedback, or suggest we send the survey on to their providers with their permission.

I’m not sure that in either case we will get many responses, given the additional step involved, but if we receive permission to contact the providers, ICANN staff should be able to assist with sending out the requests (though not without some additional work).


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 15:10
To: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week

In many cases, the providers do not have the right to provide answers on behalf of the registries.   I think reaching out to the registries themselves is the way to go with the explanation that these questions may need to be answered by their back end providers.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week

Why not ensure that the survey is being sent to the providers as well?

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week

Dear Mary, Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for putting together the survey. I believe this may somewhat help collect more responses, but would like to reiterate a comment I made in the chat (although it got no traction at the time, but my audio was limited) during the last call.

My organization, Afnic, is one of the few who submitted a response to the survey so far. We did it on behalf of one of our clients, the City of Paris. I have significant concerns about reaching out directly to registries, for the following reasons :

-          The questions are extremely technical, and most of our clients would be completely lost

-          There is no clear benefit for registries to  invest time in answering this survey. The TMCH is often “dealt with” by a partner / provider.

I understand the need to collect data from registries, but would suggest either of two options :

1)      Consider that the low level of responses is an information in itself, and leave it at that.

2)      Reach out to registry service providers rather than registries to collect more meaningful data.

Just my two cents as a respondent to the survey.


De : gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Mary Wong
Envoyé : vendredi 6 janvier 2017 23:08
À : gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Objet : [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week

Dear all,

As requested during the Working Group call held earlier this week, staff has put all the questions that were sent to the Registries Stakeholder Group by the TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team into a survey format. You can preview and test it here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Preview/?sm=twhcvzt1lfNFkO_2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6gce_2BEqGy7WKuGCzlJFTYJqbEcIQPe6n2COQ[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_Preview_-3Fsm-3Dtwhcvzt1lfNFkO-5F2BF7lNnr7iX41Ca6gce-5F2BEqGy7WKuGCzlJFTYJqbEcIQPe6n2COQ&d=DgMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=QT0Uk_mO6w4iPS3jycsCHssYAEvCjpNrAXi-t9jVsMs&s=Tb4D1mPy40jR24WQ0MgaleL6V6Kn1MW3_iTP-vvGi7c&e=>.

Please note that while we have retained almost all of the text of the original questions, in a few places we have rearranged their order or converted a question into a statement inviting comment. However, we do not believe we have changed any of the scope or intent of the questions, and we have not otherwise edited, deleted or added any questions.

Also as agreed on the call, staff will work with the co-chairs to transmit this survey to specific registry operators (especially those offering blocking mechanism services who have not yet responded to the original solicitation for feedback) and via the registry members of this Working Group.

Thanks and cheers

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170110/0c99643c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list