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

Mathieu Weill mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Tue Jan 10 07:51:22 UTC 2017


Hi Mary, All,



Thanks for the feedbacks, they are very relevant of course.



I was under the impression that the types of questions we ask were not 
necessarily requiring TLD by TLD figures, that is why I figured that 
aggregated responses from registry service providers were a good alternative 
to broaden our perspective, without the need to obtain client approval. But 
I have no way to confirm whether that would be legally acceptable.



If the identified way forward is not too burdensome, that’s fine with me.



Best

Mathieu



De : Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org]
Envoyé : mardi 10 janvier 2017 02:26
À : Jeff Neuman; Paul Keating; Mathieu Weill; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Objet : Re: [Ext] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Follow up from WG call this week



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).



Cheers

Mary





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:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or 
<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw





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> on behalf of Mathieu Weill 
<mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Date: Monday, January 9, 2017 at 12:44 PM
To: 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



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.



Best

Mathieu



De : 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
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





Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong at icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889





_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list 
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/e83e0b70/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list