[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