From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Sep 3 08:09:02 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 08:09:02 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] REMIONDER: PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session Message-ID: Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 4 September or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( gnso-secs at icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat From: owner-gnso-secs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:54 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: [gnso-secs] PLEASE RSVP Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session Reminder: Monthly GNSO WG Newcomer Open House Session These ongoing monthly sessions are for new GNSO WG participants to come together and discuss any questions they may have about GNSO Working Groups, procedures and/or processes. We know there is a lot of information to digest when you join a GNSO Working Group and these monthly meetings are an opportunity for newcomers and more experienced participants to meet in an informal setting without the pressure of "real work" that needs be done. The agenda is flexible. The presenters will be ready with a standard set of materials if people would like to discuss them. Feel free to submit questions, either in advance or at the beginning of the meeting, if there is a topic that you would like to explore in more depth . Providing useful answers to a wide range of questions is part of the reason why these meetings are Thursday 7 August at 12.00 UTC Thursday 4 September at 20.00 UTC Thursday 2 October at 12.00 UTC Thursday 6 November at 20.00 UTC Thursday 4 December at 12.00 UTC To convert to your local time zone, please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html If you are interested to join the next meeting on 7 August or any of the future meetings, please let the GNSO Secretariat know ( gnso-secs at icann.org) and we will send you the call details. If there are any specific questions you already have, or any overviews or introductions you think would be helpful (e.g. GNSO Policy Development Process or GNSO Working Group guidelines), please let us know in advance and we will prepare materials accordingly. Feel free to share this invitation with others that you think may be interested. We look forward to welcoming you at the next meeting! Nathalie Peregrine GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Sat Sep 6 16:18:23 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 16:18:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I hope this email finds you well. I waited with the sending out of the agenda until today as it is the deadline that James marked in his email last week (see below). So far I have received no edits. In light of that, please find below the suggested agenda for Monday?s call. Best wishes, Lars IRTP Part D PDP Working Group Meeting ? 9 September 2014 15.00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Review of Final Report ? especially GDD comments 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting From: James Bladel Date: Friday, 29 August 2014 17:15 To: Lars HOFFMANN , "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report Thank you, Lars. Team: Given that we have next Monday off, please use the time between now and our next call (8 September) to review the following items: 1. List of GDD comments provided by Lars (below) 2. Text of Recommendations 3. Overall proof-reading and readability. Please submit your comments/edits to the list no later than Saturday 6 September! Otherwise they will need to be raised during our call. Thanks? J. From: Lars Hoffmann Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 at 9:36 To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report Dear all, Apologies for the late distribution of this update but thanks to the slight delay I was able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team that might be useful to the Group?s discussion. It would be great if you found some time to go through the Report ? especially the recommendations and observations in Section 4 and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. Main edits from the last version are related to Charter Question F and the additional recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 ? including the new Recommendation #19. Please also note the comments from ICANN?s GDD Team on: * page 14 * Page 16 * Page 18 * Page 22 * Page 24 (two comments) * Page 26 * Page 28 (two comments) * Page 30 * Page 42 Finally, please note that for ease of reading I have started the latest changes from a clean copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. Many thanks and have a good weekend and those lucky enough to have Monday off ? have a great Labour Day, too! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Mon Sep 8 02:12:26 2014 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 22:12:26 -0400 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry for the late comment. Rec 13 now reads: #13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website containing all relevant information concerning disputed transfers and potential remedies to registrants. Such a website should be clearly accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities page (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). I would suggest that "should be clearly accessible from" be changed to "should be clearly accessible from or integrated into" That gives those implementing the recommendation free reign to do this in the most logical and "user-friendly" manner. I will be on at the start of the call, but will need to leave within a few minutes, so if there are any questions about this, I would hope that they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. Thanks, Alan At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: >Dear all, > >Apologies for the late distribution of this >update but thanks to the slight delay I was able >to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team that >might be useful to the Group?s discussion. > >It would be great if you found some time to go >through the Report ? especially the >recommendations and observations in Section 4 >and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. > >Main edits from the last version are related to >Charter Question F and the additional >recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found on >pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 ? including the new Recommendation #19. > >Please also note the comments from ICANN?s GDD Team on: > * page 14 > * Page 16 > * Page 18 > * Page 22 > * Page 24 (two comments) > * Page 26 > * Page 28 (two comments) > * Page 30 > * Page 42 >Finally, please note that for ease of reading I >have started the latest changes from a clean >copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. > >Many thanks and have a good weekend and those >lucky enough to have Monday off ? have a great Labour Day, too! > >Best, >Lars > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Mon Sep 8 04:45:55 2014 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:45:55 -0400 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: <3766_1410142455_540D10F7_3766_275_1_f78a539f-6895-4ec9-808 9-d840c2ff6ac8@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <3766_1410142455_540D10F7_3766_275_1_f78a539f-6895-4ec9-8089-d840c2ff6ac8@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: <6c4b5ae0-1180-4517-afb7-2633a0b48a74@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> One more small wording change. 14 starts off with: The WG recommends that, as an additional best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars... That should have been: The WG recommends that, in addition, as a best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars (See page 29 of the trascript - http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-irtp-d-18aug14-en.pdf ot at about minute 50 of the MP3). Alan At 07/09/2014 10:12 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Sorry for the late comment. > >Rec 13 now reads: > >#13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and >maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website >containing all relevant information concerning >disputed transfers and potential remedies to >registrants. Such a website should be clearly >accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits >and Responsibilities page ( >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). > >I would suggest that "should be clearly >accessible from" be changed to "should be >clearly accessible from or integrated into" > >That gives those implementing the recommendation >free reign to do this in the most logical and "user-friendly" manner. > >I will be on at the start of the call, but will >need to leave within a few minutes, so if there >are any questions about this, I would hope that >they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. > >Thanks, Alan > >At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: >>Dear all, >> >>Apologies for the late distribution of this >>update but thanks to the slight delay I was >>able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team >>that might be useful to the Group?s discussion. >> >>It would be great if you found some time to go >>through the Report ? especially the >>recommendations and observations in Section 4 >>and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. >> >>Main edits from the last version are related to >>Charter Question F and the additional >>recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found >>on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 ? including the new Recommendation #19. >> >>Please also note the comments from ICANN?s GDD Team on: >> * page 14 >> * Page 16 >> * Page 18 >> * Page 22 >> * Page 24 (two comments) >> * Page 26 >> * Page 28 (two comments) >> * Page 30 >> * Page 42 >>Finally, please note that for ease of reading I >>have started the latest changes from a clean >>copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. >> >>Many thanks and have a good weekend and those >>lucky enough to have Monday off ? have a great Labour Day, too! >> >>Best, >>Lars >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Sep 8 13:12:53 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:12:53 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Alan. Good recommendation. J. From: Alan Greenberg > Date: Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 21:12 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report Sorry for the late comment. Rec 13 now reads: #13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website containing all relevant information concerning disputed transfers and potential remedies to registrants. Such a website should be clearly accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities page ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). I would suggest that "should be clearly accessible from" be changed to "should be clearly accessible from or integrated into" That gives those implementing the recommendation free reign to do this in the most logical and "user-friendly" manner. I will be on at the start of the call, but will need to leave within a few minutes, so if there are any questions about this, I would hope that they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. Thanks, Alan At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear all, Apologies for the late distribution of this update but thanks to the slight delay I was able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team that might be useful to the Group's discussion. It would be great if you found some time to go through the Report - especially the recommendations and observations in Section 4 and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. Main edits from the last version are related to Charter Question F and the additional recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 - including the new Recommendation #19. Please also note the comments from ICANN's GDD Team on: * page 14 * Page 16 * Page 18 * Page 22 * Page 24 (two comments) * Page 26 * Page 28 (two comments) * Page 30 * Page 42 Finally, please note that for ease of reading I have started the latest changes from a clean copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. Many thanks and have a good weekend and those lucky enough to have Monday off - have a great Labour Day, too! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Sep 8 13:13:37 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:13:37 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: <6c4b5ae0-1180-4517-afb7-2633a0b48a74@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> References: <3766_1410142455_540D10F7_3766_275_1_f78a539f-6895-4ec9-8089-d840c2ff6ac8@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> <6c4b5ae0-1180-4517-afb7-2633a0b48a74@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: I actually prefer the original language on this. But maybe we can wordsmith something better during our call. Thanks- J. From: Alan Greenberg > Date: Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 23:45 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report One more small wording change. 14 starts off with: The WG recommends that, as an additional best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars... That should have been: The WG recommends that, in addition, as a best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars (See page 29 of the trascript - http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-irtp-d-18aug14-en.pdf ot at about minute 50 of the MP3). Alan At 07/09/2014 10:12 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Sorry for the late comment. Rec 13 now reads: #13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website containing all relevant information concerning disputed transfers and potential remedies to registrants. Such a website should be clearly accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities page ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). I would suggest that "should be clearly accessible from" be changed to "should be clearly accessible from or integrated into" That gives those implementing the recommendation free reign to do this in the most logical and "user-friendly" manner. I will be on at the start of the call, but will need to leave within a few minutes, so if there are any questions about this, I would hope that they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. Thanks, Alan At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear all, Apologies for the late distribution of this update but thanks to the slight delay I was able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team that might be useful to the Group's discussion. It would be great if you found some time to go through the Report - especially the recommendations and observations in Section 4 and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. Main edits from the last version are related to Charter Question F and the additional recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 - including the new Recommendation #19. Please also note the comments from ICANN's GDD Team on: * page 14 * Page 16 * Page 18 * Page 22 * Page 24 (two comments) * Page 26 * Page 28 (two comments) * Page 30 * Page 42 Finally, please note that for ease of reading I have started the latest changes from a clean copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. Many thanks and have a good weekend and those lucky enough to have Monday off - have a great Labour Day, too! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca Mon Sep 8 13:48:59 2014 From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca (Alan Greenberg) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:48:59 -0400 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: References: <3766_1410142455_540D10F7_3766_275_1_f78a539f-6895-4ec9-8089-d840c2ff6ac8@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> <6c4b5ae0-1180-4517-afb7-2633a0b48a74@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: I can live with it either way, The wording I proposed was what was mentioned on the call (by me) with no disagreement. 14 became semi redundant with the change to 13, and the intent was that in addition to the mandatory pointing to the R&R/B&R, Registrars/Resellers could also point directly. With "..an additional best practice..", additional to what? Alan At 08/09/2014 09:13 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: >I actually prefer the original language on >this. But maybe we can wordsmith something better during our call. > >Thanks? > >J. > >From: Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >Date: Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 23:45 >To: Lars Hoffmann ><lars.hoffmann at icann.org>, >"gnso-irtpd at icann.org" ><gnso-irtpd at icann.org> >Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report > >One more small wording change. > >14 starts off with: The WG recommends that, as >an additional best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars... > >That should have been: The WG recommends that, >in addition, as a best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars >(See page 29 of the trascript - >http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-irtp-d-18aug14-en.pdf >ot at about minute 50 of the MP3). > >Alan a > >At 07/09/2014 10:12 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >>Sorry for the late comment. >> >>Rec 13 now reads: >> >>#13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and >>maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website >>containing all relevant information concerning >>disputed transfers and potential remedies to >>registrants. Such a website should be clearly >>accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits >>and Responsibilities page ( >>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). >> >>I would suggest that "should be clearly >>accessible from" be changed to "should be >>clearly accessible from or integrated into" >> >>That gives those implementing the >>recommendation free reign to do this in the >>most logical and "user-friendly" manner. >> >>I will be on at the start of the call, but will >>need to leave within a few minutes, so if there >>are any questions about this, I would hope that >>they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. >> >>Thanks, Alan >> >>At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: >>>Dear all, >>> >>>Apologies for the late distribution of this >>>update but thanks to the slight delay I was >>>able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team >>>that might be useful to the Group?s discussion. >>> >>>It would be great if you found some time to go >>>through the Report ? especially the >>>recommendations and observations in Section 4 >>>and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. >>> >>>Main edits from the last version are related >>>to Charter Question F and the additional >>>recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found >>>on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 ? including the new Recommendation #19. >>> >>>Please also note the comments from ICANN?s GDD Team on: >>> * page 14 >>> * Page 16 >>> * Page 18 >>> * Page 22 >>> * Page 24 (two comments) >>> * Page 26 >>> * Page 28 (two comments) >>> * Page 30 >>> * Page 42 >>>Finally, please note that for ease of reading >>>I have started the latest changes from a clean >>>copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. >>> >>>Many thanks and have a good weekend and those >>>lucky enough to have Monday off ? have a great Labour Day, too! >>> >>>Best, >>>Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdorrain at adrforum.com Mon Sep 8 15:46:21 2014 From: kdorrain at adrforum.com (Dorrain, Kristine) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 15:46:21 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report In-Reply-To: References: <3766_1410142455_540D10F7_3766_275_1_f78a539f-6895-4ec9-8089-d840c2ff6ac8@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> <6c4b5ae0-1180-4517-afb7-2633a0b48a74@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA> Message-ID: Apologies for missing the call. I had a crisis to deal with here. Kristine From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 8:49 AM To: James M. Bladel; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report I can live with it either way, The wording I proposed was what was mentioned on the call (by me) with no disagreement. 14 became semi redundant with the change to 13, and the intent was that in addition to the mandatory pointing to the R&R/B&R, Registrars/Resellers could also point directly. With "..an additional best practice..", additional to what? Alan At 08/09/2014 09:13 AM, James M. Bladel wrote: I actually prefer the original language on this. But maybe we can wordsmith something better during our call. Thanks? J. From: Alan Greenberg > Date: Sunday, September 7, 2014 at 23:45 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org " > Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Updated Report One more small wording change. 14 starts off with: The WG recommends that, as an additional best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars... That should have been: The WG recommends that, in addition, as a best practice, ICANN accredited Registrars (See page 29 of the trascript - http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-irtp-d-18aug14-en.pdf ot at about minute 50 of the MP3). Alan a At 07/09/2014 10:12 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Sorry for the late comment. Rec 13 now reads: #13 The WG recommends that ICANN create and maintain a user-friendly, one-stop website containing all relevant information concerning disputed transfers and potential remedies to registrants. Such a website should be clearly accessible from the ICANN Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities page ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/benefits-2013-09-16-en). I would suggest that "should be clearly accessible from" be changed to "should be clearly accessible from or integrated into" That gives those implementing the recommendation free reign to do this in the most logical and "user-friendly" manner. I will be on at the start of the call, but will need to leave within a few minutes, so if there are any questions about this, I would hope that they can be addressed at the start of the meeting. Thanks, Alan At 29/08/2014 10:36 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote: Dear all, Apologies for the late distribution of this update but thanks to the slight delay I was able to include comments from ICANN's GDD Team that might be useful to the Group?s discussion. It would be great if you found some time to go through the Report ? especially the recommendations and observations in Section 4 and also consider the newly supplied comments from the GDD Team. Main edits from the last version are related to Charter Question F and the additional recommendations 18 and 19. These can be found on pages 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 ? including the new Recommendation #19. Please also note the comments from ICANN?s GDD Team on: * page 14 * Page 16 * Page 18 * Page 22 * Page 24 (two comments) * Page 26 * Page 28 (two comments) * Page 30 * Page 42 Finally, please note that for ease of reading I have started the latest changes from a clean copy, meaning that only the edits from the last version are red-lined. Many thanks and have a good weekend and those lucky enough to have Monday off ? have a great Labour Day, too! Best, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Sep 8 18:31:32 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:31:32 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 08 September 2014 Message-ID: <400f34bac23b4825ad9f4ecb4a7e9084@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held next week on 15 September 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 08 September 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140908-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Volker Greimann ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Avri Doria ? NCSG James Bladel ? RrSG Alan Greenberg ? ALAC Angie Graves- BC Bob Mountain - RrSG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Bartlett Morgan-NCUC Rob Golding - RrSG Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Kevin Erdman- IPC Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 08 September 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 08 September 2014 Avri Doria:At this point better to over specify Alan Greenberg:COuld alter to say should be amended with the intent as follows. Bob Mountain:No worries she's much smarter than me anyways. Arthur Zonnenberg:for recommendation 3, we can remove the final sentence to reduce its legal nature Alan Greenberg:On my changes, on 13, James has already said it was a good change. Just think that we need to give flexibility to staff to make it as clear as possible. Arthur Zonnenberg:null and void is a figure of speech Alan Greenberg:On 14, from my last message to the list: Alan Greenberg:I can live with it either way, The wording I proposed was what was mentioned on the call (by me) with no disagreement. 14 became semi redundant with the change to 13, and the intent was that in addition to the mandatory pointing to the R&R/B&R, Registrars/Resellers could also point directly. With "..an additional best practice..", additional to what? Arthur Zonnenberg:ok Alan lets wait until we get to 13 14? Bob Mountain:Annulled Bob Mountain:Nullified Angie Graves:nullified +1 Alan Greenberg:Leaving now. Will try to dial in while travelling but not sure if I will be able to speak. Bladel:I like Nullified Holly Raiche:nullified +1 Angie Graves:Safe travels, Alan! Bladel:Thanks Alan, take care. Terri Agnew:Welcome Bartlett Morgan Terri Agnew:Welcome Rob Golding Arthur Zonnenberg 2:we can recommend they completely redesign that domain transfer page QA Arthur Zonnenberg 2:the page looks nice and has mouse over, but in content is too complex Avri Doria:it is still difficult for new registratns to understand. Holly Raiche:should read: should be written in clear and non technical language Arthur Zonnenberg 2:indeed Holly amen Avri Doria:leave it as is. Terri Agnew:Alan has disconnected from audio Terri Agnew:Kristine Dorrain has sent her apologies Graeme Bunton:#18 on pg 29 Holly Raiche:Just a thought: theheading uses the term 'expects' so maybe part of the problem is the heading Rob Golding (Astutium-1471):thanks james Lars Hoffmann:thanks everybody! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Wed Sep 10 19:48:26 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:48:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 28 ? where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 September 2014. Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V6_withoutExSumm.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1980928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From h.raiche at internode.on.net Thu Sep 11 22:33:53 2014 From: h.raiche at internode.on.net (Holly Raiche) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:33:53 +1000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03A65857-043F-4CEA-BCD4-B67666D60ADA@internode.on.net> Hi Lars I am an apology for the meeting next week. I have circulated the latest version of the Final Report and if I get any feedback, I?ll send it on Holly On 11 Sep 2014, at 5:48 am, Lars Hoffmann wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 28 ? where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. > > Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 September 2014. > > Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. > > Many thanks and best wishes, > Lars > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Thu Sep 11 22:53:47 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:53:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: <03A65857-043F-4CEA-BCD4-B67666D60ADA@internode.on.net> References: <03A65857-043F-4CEA-BCD4-B67666D60ADA@internode.on.net> Message-ID: <3e600b2172b148b99f8aaae4587f5d99@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Hi Holly, We have noted your apology. Thank you, Terri From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:34 PM To: Lars Hoffmann Cc: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Importance: High Hi Lars I am an apology for the meeting next week. I have circulated the latest version of the Final Report and if I get any feedback, I'll send it on Holly On 11 Sep 2014, at 5:48 am, Lars Hoffmann > wrote: Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 September 2014. Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Sep 12 11:57:57 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:57:57 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Message-ID: Dear all, Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have been sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out? (see also below). The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this email. Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting Very best wishes, Lars From: Lars HOFFMANN Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 28 ? where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 September 2014. Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V6_withoutExSumm.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1980928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Fri Sep 12 20:24:57 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:24:57 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> All, Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going to try to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG to attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the attached. I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight into the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Importance: High Dear all, Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have been sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out" (see also below). The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this email. Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting Very best wishes, Lars From: Lars HOFFMANN Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 September 2014. Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V6_withoutExSumm-BK Comments.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1997824 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5957 bytes Desc: not available URL: From azonnenberg at hostnet.nl Mon Sep 15 13:04:34 2014 From: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl (Arthur Zonnenberg) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:04:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> Dear WG, I also have 1 comment and 2 questions in the recommendations attached (on 4.2.6 Charter Question F unsurprisingly). I don't know how to forward this to RySG, Lars can you share their e-mail address with me? I will see you 2 hours from now, if all is well. Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, Arthur Zonnenberg Product Manager Hostnet bv tel: +31.207500834 fax: +31.207500825 mail: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl website: https://www.hostnet.nl > On September 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM "Knight, Barbara" > wrote: > > > All, > > Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going to try > to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG to > attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the > report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the attached. > I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight into > the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. > > > > Barbara Knight > Director of Registry Compliance > bknight at Verisign.com > > m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 > 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com > > > > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report > Importance: High > > > > Dear all, > > > > Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed > agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have been > sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is > consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, > meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out" > (see also below). > > > > The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this email. > > > > Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 UTC > > > > 1. Roll Call/SOI Update > > 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations > > 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting > > > > Very best wishes, > > Lars > > > > > > From: Lars HOFFMANN > Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 > To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the > last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, > and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. > > > > Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 > September 2014. > > > > Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there > is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently > stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on > out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a > minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, > during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. > > > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > Lars > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V6_withoutExSumm(1) AZ Comments.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1989120 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Mon Sep 15 13:18:04 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:18:04 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>,<1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> Message-ID: <5E3817CC-69B2-4783-B69B-ED16740F0960@verisign.com> Arthur, I participate in the RySG and am happy to take a look. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance VeriSign, Inc. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 15, 2014, at 8:09 AM, "Arthur Zonnenberg" wrote: > > Dear WG, > > I also have 1 comment and 2 questions in the recommendations attached (on 4.2.6 > Charter Question F unsurprisingly). I don't know how to forward this to RySG, > Lars can you share their e-mail address with me? > > I will see you 2 hours from now, if all is well. > > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, > > Arthur Zonnenberg > Product Manager > Hostnet bv > > tel: +31.207500834 > fax: +31.207500825 > mail: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl > website: https://www.hostnet.nl > >> On September 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM "Knight, Barbara" >> wrote: >> >> >> All, >> >> Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going to try >> to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG to >> attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the >> report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the attached. >> I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight into >> the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. >> >> >> >> Barbara Knight >> Director of Registry Compliance >> bknight at Verisign.com >> >> m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 >> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 >> >> VerisignInc.com >> >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM >> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed >> agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have been >> sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is >> consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently stand, >> meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out" >> (see also below). >> >> >> >> The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this email. >> >> >> >> Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 UTC >> >> >> >> 1. Roll Call/SOI Update >> >> 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations >> >> 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting >> >> >> >> Very best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lars HOFFMANN >> Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 >> To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to the >> last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, >> and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last call. >> >> >> >> Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 >> September 2014. >> >> >> >> Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that there >> is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >> stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here on >> out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a >> minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, >> during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. >> >> >> >> Many thanks and best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Sep 15 13:21:35 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:21:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> Message-ID: Thank you Arthur, we will review your edits during today?s call. For the remainder of the report, just a reminder to all that we have TWO remaining calls (today and next Tuesday) to put the finishing touches on our Report & Recommendations. The largest remaining item to be addressed is the issue of the nonexistent IRTP-C dispute mechanism. I believe we can address this by making some modifications to our recommendation that calls for further IRTP work & data gathering. We can discuss today. Following today?s call, the objective will be to designate all recommendations as having FULL CONSENSUS. If you do not believe you support a recommendation in its existing form, your raised objections must be accompanied by proposed alternative language. We can then either modify the language, or drop the consensus level down to ?CONSENSUS.? Thanks for sticking it out thus far. We are very near the finish line! J. On 9/15/14, 8:04 , "Arthur Zonnenberg" wrote: >Dear WG, > >I also have 1 comment and 2 questions in the recommendations attached (on >4.2.6 >Charter Question F unsurprisingly). I don't know how to forward this to >RySG, >Lars can you share their e-mail address with me? > >I will see you 2 hours from now, if all is well. > >Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, > >Arthur Zonnenberg >Product Manager >Hostnet bv > >tel: +31.207500834 >fax: +31.207500825 >mail: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl >website: https://www.hostnet.nl > >> On September 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM "Knight, Barbara" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> All, >> >> Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going >>to try >> to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG >>to >> attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the >> report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the >>attached. >> I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight >>into >> the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. >> >> >> >> Barbara Knight >> Director of Registry Compliance >> bknight at Verisign.com >> >> m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 >> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 >> >> VerisignInc.com >> >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM >> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed >> agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have >>been >> sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is >> consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >>stand, >> meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out" >> (see also below). >> >> >> >> The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this >>email. >> >> >> >> Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 >>UTC >> >> >> >> 1. Roll Call/SOI Update >> >> 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations >> >> 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting >> >> >> >> Very best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lars HOFFMANN >> Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 >> To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to >>the >> last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, >>26, >> and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last >>call. >> >> >> >> Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 >> September 2014. >> >> >> >> Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that >>there >> is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >> stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here >>on >> out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a >> minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, >> during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. >> >> >> >> Many thanks and best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Sep 15 13:23:09 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:23:09 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> Message-ID: Arthur, Thank you for your document. I will merge this with the one Barbara sent. As for the RYSG email, I do not have that information - and Barbara, as a member of the RySG, will certainly forward if need be. Please note that there is no need to liaise with the various SG/C at this stage; rather all WG members can liaise with and gather input from their respective SG/C at any time they wish to do so. Best wishes, Lars On 15/09/2014 15:04, "Arthur Zonnenberg" wrote: >Dear WG, > >I also have 1 comment and 2 questions in the recommendations attached (on >4.2.6 >Charter Question F unsurprisingly). I don't know how to forward this to >RySG, >Lars can you share their e-mail address with me? > >I will see you 2 hours from now, if all is well. > >Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, > >Arthur Zonnenberg >Product Manager >Hostnet bv > >tel: +31.207500834 >fax: +31.207500825 >mail: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl >website: https://www.hostnet.nl > >> On September 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM "Knight, Barbara" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> All, >> >> Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going >>to try >> to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG >>to >> attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the >> report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the >>attached. >> I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight >>into >> the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. >> >> >> >> Barbara Knight >> Director of Registry Compliance >> bknight at Verisign.com >> >> m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 >> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 >> >> VerisignInc.com >> >> >> >> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On >> Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM >> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> Importance: High >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed >> agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have >>been >> sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is >> consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >>stand, >> meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on out" >> (see also below). >> >> >> >> The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this >>email. >> >> >> >> Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 >>UTC >> >> >> >> 1. Roll Call/SOI Update >> >> 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations >> >> 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting >> >> >> >> Very best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Lars HOFFMANN >> Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 >> To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" >> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to >>the >> last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, >>26, >> and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last >>call. >> >> >> >> Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 >> September 2014. >> >> >> >> Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that >>there >> is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >> stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here >>on >> out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a >> minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, >> during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. >> >> >> >> Many thanks and best wishes, >> >> Lars >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Sep 15 13:26:35 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:26:35 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report In-Reply-To: References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158673AD5@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <1533991116.35426.1410786274371.JavaMail.open-xchange@ox.office.hostnet.nl> Message-ID: I should have said 'no obligation' rather than ?no need?. On 15/09/2014 15:23, "Lars Hoffmann" wrote: >Arthur, >Thank you for your document. I will merge this with the one Barbara sent. >As for the RYSG email, I do not have that information - and Barbara, as a >member of the RySG, will certainly forward if need be. >Please note that there is no need to liaise with the various SG/C at this >stage; rather all WG members can liaise with and gather input from their >respective SG/C at any time they wish to do so. >Best wishes, >Lars > > >On 15/09/2014 15:04, "Arthur Zonnenberg" wrote: > >>Dear WG, >> >>I also have 1 comment and 2 questions in the recommendations attached (on >>4.2.6 >>Charter Question F unsurprisingly). I don't know how to forward this to >>RySG, >>Lars can you share their e-mail address with me? >> >>I will see you 2 hours from now, if all is well. >> >>Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards, >> >>Arthur Zonnenberg >>Product Manager >>Hostnet bv >> >>tel: +31.207500834 >>fax: +31.207500825 >>mail: azonnenberg at hostnet.nl >>website: https://www.hostnet.nl >> >>> On September 12, 2014 at 10:24 PM "Knight, Barbara" >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Because I may not be able to attend the meeting on Monday (I am going >>>to try >>> to rework my schedule since there are no others available from the RySG >>>to >>> attend), I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest version of the >>> report. I have inserted some comments / recommended edits in the >>>attached. >>> I have also forwarded this along to the RySG, accompanied by my insight >>>into >>> the report, and have asked for any feedback. Thanks much. >>> >>> >>> >>> Barbara Knight >>> Director of Registry Compliance >>> bknight at Verisign.com >>> >>> m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 >>> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 >>> >>> VerisignInc.com >>> >>> >>> >>> From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On >>> Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann >>> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:58 AM >>> To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org >>> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >>> Importance: High >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Following my messages from earlier this week, please find the proposed >>> agenda below. For you information, no proposed changes/amendments have >>>been >>> sent in, so we are still operating under the assumption that " there is >>> consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >>>stand, >>> meaning we anticipate only minor non-substantive edits from here on >>>out" >>> (see also below). >>> >>> >>> >>> The latest version of the Draft Final Report is also attached to this >>>email. >>> >>> >>> >>> Proposed draft agenda for IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 15 September 15:00 >>>UTC >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Roll Call/SOI Update >>> >>> 2. Determining consensus level on recommendations >>> >>> 3. Review next steps and confirming next meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> Very best wishes, >>> >>> Lars >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Lars HOFFMANN >>> Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:48 >>> To: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" >>> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your review - Draft Final Report >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find attached the latest version of the Final Report. Changes to >>>the >>> last version are redlined. Please see especially pages 16, 18, 20, 24, >>>26, >>> and 28 - where the Group addressed the GDD comments during our last >>>call. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that we are approaching fast the LA submission deadline: 22 >>> September 2014. >>> >>> >>> >>> Based on the discussion during the last calls, the assumption is that >>>there >>> is consensus among the Group for all recommendations as they currently >>> stand, meaning we anticipate only minor non-substaitve edits from here >>>on >>> out. If you do not agree with this statement and/or plan to submit a >>> minority statement, please indicate this on the list or, at the latest, >>> during our next meeting, Monday 15 September. >>> >>> >>> >>> Many thanks and best wishes, >>> >>> Lars >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From terri.agnew at icann.org Mon Sep 15 20:50:39 2014 From: terri.agnew at icann.org (Terri Agnew) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:50:39 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 15 September 2014 Message-ID: <35e71453b7184a65a4515b8720a5502a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, The next Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group meeting will be held next week on 22 September 2014. Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 15 September 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140915-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG Avri Doria ? NCSG James Bladel ? RrSG Angie Graves- BC Bob Mountain - RrSG Kristine Dorrian ? National Arbitration Forum Kevin Erdman ? IPC Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Bartlett Morgan-NCUC Alan Greenberg ? ALAC ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Steve Chan Berry Cobb Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 15 September 2014: Lars Hoffmann: Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 15 September 2014 Barbara Knight:I have had to join via the Adobe. So I am not sure if y ou all can here me or not Graeme Bunton:someone is breathing a bit heavy Bladel:If you aren't speaking, please mute; Terri Agnew:Kristine Dorrain has joined Terri Agnew:Avri Doria has joined Lars Hoffmann:#6 The WG recommends that if a request for enforcement is initiated under the TDRP the relevant domain should be ?locked? against further transfers while such request for enforcement is pending. Accordingly, ?TDRP action? and ?URS action? are to be added to the second bullet point of the list of denial reasons in the IRTP (Section 3); the TDRP should be amended acordingly The TDRP as well as guidelines to registrars, registries and third party dispute providers should be modified accordingly. The WG notes that the locking should be executed in the way that the UDRP prescribes ? once that the UDRP locking process is implemented. Barbara Knight:To the extent that the locking mechanism includes a servertransfer prohibited status is added, It will definitely stop domain name hopping. Avri Doria:is it an expectation or a hope. Avri Doria:ok, i was just gu==aging the conversation. Avri Doria:gauging Avri Doria:gaging , whatever Barbara Knight:Really just correction of typos Barbara Knight:Now that makes more sense to me. Barbara Knight:I was having a hard time relating to how it applied. Barbara Knight:I like that wording. Thanks james Barbara Knight:You are welcome Arthur Zonnenberg:agree Graeme Bunton:Is there a typo in 12? Graeme Bunton:the ese of a privacy service, should by use Lars Hoffmann:yes ... use rather than ese Berry Cobb:#12, Column 5 will have to be edited if we switch it to red. Terri Agnew:Kevin Erdman has joined Avri Doria:thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5417 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Tue Sep 16 08:58:37 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:58:37 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Latest Version Message-ID: Dear all, Following yesterday?s call, please find attached the lasted update to the draft Final Report. As we merged former recommendations #6 and #7, this latest version has 18 recommendations in total. A complete Final Draft will be circulated by the end of the week, that contains the executive summary, additional formatting etc.; no substantive changes will be made unless additional edits are previously circulated on the list. We are operating under the assumption that there is full consensus on all recommendations. Please note the changes from the last draft on pages: P.15 ? edits to Recommendation #2 P.18 ? edits to Recommendation #6; re?worded paragraph (Section 4.2.2.4) P. 23 ? rewording P.26 ? edits to Recommendation #15 P.27 ? rewording P.28 ? added sentence P.30 ? edited bullet points; added extra bullet point; edit to Recommendation #17 P. 31 ? edits to Recommendation #18 Annex C ? edits to Use Cases #9 and #12 Many thanks and best wishes, Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V7_withoutExSumm.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1978368 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Fri Sep 19 17:20:40 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:20:40 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_V8_withExSumm.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1965056 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Fri Sep 19 20:28:14 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:28:14 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158693B96@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/pkcs7-mime Size: 19708 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Sep 19 20:31:20 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:31:20 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Message-ID: Thanks, Barbara. I'm curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not "fully support" a recommendation, due to a single member's disagreement? How would this be reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if their membership is unanimous? Thanks- J. From: "Knight, Barbara" > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is Recommendation #15 - "As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible." One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation #5 - "The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer." This item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups' Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday's call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda - IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and - if necessary - confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pdiaz at pir.org Fri Sep 19 21:48:26 2014 From: pdiaz at pir.org (Paul Diaz) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:48:26 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi James, The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition (assuming the conditions below). As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) or offer some edit. Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started in 2008 ...er, maybe not! Best, P On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel > wrote: Thanks, Barbara. I?m curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not ?fully support? a recommendation, due to a single member?s disagreement? How would this be reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if their membership is unanimous? Thanks? J. From: "Knight, Barbara" > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is Recommendation #15 - ?As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible.? One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation #5 ? ?The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.? This item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Fri Sep 19 22:21:33 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:21:33 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF415869411E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Thanks Paul. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Paul Diaz [mailto:pdiaz at pir.org] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 5:48 PM To: James Bladel; Knight, Barbara Cc: Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Hi James, The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition (assuming the conditions below). As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) or offer some edit. Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started in 2008 ...er, maybe not! Best, P On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel > wrote: Thanks, Barbara. I'm curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not "fully support" a recommendation, due to a single member's disagreement? How would this be reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if their membership is unanimous? Thanks- J. From: "Knight, Barbara" > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is Recommendation #15 - "As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible." One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation #5 - "The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer." This item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups' Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday's call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda - IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and - if necessary - confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Fri Sep 19 23:48:41 2014 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:48:41 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Paul. We still have the option of lowering our consensus level from "Full Consensus/Unanimous" to "Consensus," but will wait to hear back from Barbara. And to the Chair of IRTP-A: it's been a long and interesting road, but we are finally nearing the end. ;) Thanks- J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" > wrote: Hi James, The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition (assuming the conditions below). As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) or offer some edit. Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started in 2008 ...er, maybe not! Best, P On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel > wrote: Thanks, Barbara. I?m curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not ?fully support? a recommendation, due to a single member?s disagreement? How would this be reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if their membership is unanimous? Thanks? J. From: "Knight, Barbara" > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is Recommendation #15 - ?As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible.? One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation #5 ? ?The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.? This item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Mon Sep 22 03:17:24 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:17:24 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698450@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> James, As per my previous email, there has been some discussion within the RySG relating to recommendations #5 and #15. In my previous communication, I provided a summary of the discussion relating to recommendation #15. With regard to #5, which calls for extending the statute of limitations for filing a dispute from 6 months to 12, the discussion surrounded the goal of the recommendation in striking a balance between registrant protections and legal certainty. The question was raised as to whether extending the statute would enhance registrant protection. It was pointed out that if this is, indeed, the goal, it should be supported by data. As we have discussed on previous WG calls, having supporting data has long been a hot topic so I can understand this concern amongst the RySG. Those individuals who have expressed concerns may opt, at a future point in time, to submit a minority statement expressing their concerns. However, at this time, the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D final report. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:49 PM To: Paul Diaz Cc: Knight, Barbara; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Thanks Paul. We still have the option of lowering our consensus level from "Full Consensus/Unanimous" to "Consensus," but will wait to hear back from Barbara. And to the Chair of IRTP-A: it's been a long and interesting road, but we are finally nearing the end. ;) Thanks- J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" > wrote: Hi James, The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition (assuming the conditions below). As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) or offer some edit. Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started in 2008 ...er, maybe not! Best, P On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel > wrote: Thanks, Barbara. I?m curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not ?fully support? a recommendation, due to a single member?s disagreement? How would this be reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if their membership is unanimous? Thanks? J. From: "Knight, Barbara" > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 To: Lars Hoffmann >, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is Recommendation #15 - ?As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible.? One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation #5 ? ?The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.? This item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a good weekend! Best wishes, Lars Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 1. Roll Call/SOI Update 2. Reviewing final changes 3. Agreeing on consensus level 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Sep 22 08:11:07 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:11:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698450@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698450@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Dear Barbara, all, I just wanted to confirm whether you are referring to a formal minority view as outlined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. If so, these are normally included as part of the Final Report and as such would need to be included before the report is published (which was foreseen for today). It is unfortunate of course that this comes so late into the process, but at the same time, it is probably worth for the WG to consider how to deal with this issue as a formal minority statement on the statue of limitations could also trigger requests from others such as ALAC and Thomas Rickert to include a similar minority statement on extending the statue of limitations to 15 months. Of course, if you are not referring to a formal minority statement but comments that some RySG members may make as part of the Council deliberations or public comment forum prior to Board consideration, then there may not be any need for further WG consideration. Regardless, one possible way to address the concern might be to consider an amendment to 4.2.7.1 (p.35) of the Final Report. This is the section, in which the proposed issues for a future review of the IRTP are listed. Maybe an additional bullet point might address the RySG concerns and assure that future changes to (or reversals of) policy regarding the statute of limitations are based on relevant data points: * The period of time between the occurrence of an alleged non-compliant transfer and the launch of an IRTP process ? including those incidents where there no IRTP was launched due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Maybe this would address some of the concerns raised? Best wishes, Lars From: , Barbara Knight Date: Monday, 22 September 2014 05:17 To: James Bladel , Paul Diaz Cc: Lars HOFFMANN , "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review James, As per my previous email, there has been some discussion within the RySG relating to recommendations #5 and #15. In my previous communication, I provided a summary of the discussion relating to recommendation #15. With regard to #5, which calls for extending the statute of limitations for filing a dispute from 6 months to 12, the discussion surrounded the goal of the recommendation in striking a balance between registrant protections and legal certainty. The question was raised as to whether extending the statute would enhance registrant protection. It was pointed out that if this is, indeed, the goal, it should be supported by data. As we have discussed on previous WG calls, having supporting data has long been a hot topic so I can understand this concern amongst the RySG. Those individuals who have expressed concerns may opt, at a future point in time, to submit a minority statement expressing their concerns. However, at this time, the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D final report. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:49 PM To: Paul Diaz Cc: Knight, Barbara; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Thanks Paul. We still have the option of lowering our consensus level from "Full Consensus/Unanimous" to "Consensus," but will wait to hear back from Barbara. And to the Chair of IRTP-A: it's been a long and interesting road, but we are finally nearing the end. ;) Thanks- J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say > "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was > some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition > (assuming the conditions below). > > > > As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have > raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is > prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" > policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this > issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who > raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) > or offer some edit. > > > > Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's > call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps > its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or > just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's > fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. > > > > Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to > join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for > seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started > in 2008 ...er, maybe not! > > > > Best, P > > > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > > Thanks, Barbara. > > > > I?m curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not ?fully support? a > recommendation, due to a single member?s disagreement? How would this be > reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if > their membership is unanimous? > > > > Thanks? > > > > J. > > > > > > From: "Knight, Barbara" > > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 > To: Lars Hoffmann >, > "gnso-irtpd at icann.org " > > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review > > > > Lars, > > Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of > the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. > Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the > RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is > Recommendation #15 - ?As a guidance to future policy development processes, > this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided > wherever possible.? One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there > are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making > effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than > transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation > #5 ? ?The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be > extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.? This > item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible > whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have > been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to > fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. > > > > Barbara Knight > Director of Registry Compliance > bknight at Verisign.com > > m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 > 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com > > > > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org ] On > Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There > are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and > to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. > > > > To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested > (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. > > > > If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. > > > > Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a > good weekend! > > Best wishes, > > Lars > > > > Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 > > > > 1. Roll Call/SOI Update > > 2. Reviewing final changes > > 3. Agreeing on consensus level > > 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From BKnight at verisign.com Mon Sep 22 12:33:55 2014 From: BKnight at verisign.com (Knight, Barbara) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:33:55 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698450@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698FC7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/pkcs7-mime Size: 51754 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Sep 22 12:57:47 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:57:47 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review In-Reply-To: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698FC7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698450@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <7746E0B70F47DB448101E1DA28BCFF4158698FC7@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Thanks Barbara ? I will add your suggested edit to the draft so we can discuss later on the call. Very best! Lars From: Barbara Knight Date: Monday, 22 September 2014 14:33 To: Lars HOFFMANN , James Bladel , Paul Diaz Cc: "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Lars, Thank you for suggesting the addition of the language below in Section 4.2.7.1 as I believe that this will address the data point. Since it will be difficult to know / measure the incidents where no IRTP was launched due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, perhaps we could amend your suggested language as below. Please note that I modified it a bit to reference the TDRP instead of the IRTP and referenced the dispute vs. the policy to make it a bit clearer. Thanks again for the suggestion. ? The period of time between the occurrence of an alleged non-compliant transfer and the launch of the TDRP process ? including those incidents where no dispute was launched or the dispute was rejected due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: Lars Hoffmann [mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 4:11 AM To: Knight, Barbara; James M. Bladel; Paul Diaz Cc: gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Dear Barbara, all, I just wanted to confirm whether you are referring to a formal minority view as outlined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. If so, these are normally included as part of the Final Report and as such would need to be included before the report is published (which was foreseen for today). It is unfortunate of course that this comes so late into the process, but at the same time, it is probably worth for the WG to consider how to deal with this issue as a formal minority statement on the statue of limitations could also trigger requests from others such as ALAC and Thomas Rickert to include a similar minority statement on extending the statue of limitations to 15 months. Of course, if you are not referring to a formal minority statement but comments that some RySG members may make as part of the Council deliberations or public comment forum prior to Board consideration, then there may not be any need for further WG consideration. Regardless, one possible way to address the concern might be to consider an amendment to 4.2.7.1 (p.35) of the Final Report. This is the section, in which the proposed issues for a future review of the IRTP are listed. Maybe an additional bullet point might address the RySG concerns and assure that future changes to (or reversals of) policy regarding the statute of limitations are based on relevant data points: * The period of time between the occurrence of an alleged non-compliant transfer and the launch of an IRTP process ? including those incidents where there no IRTP was launched due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Maybe this would address some of the concerns raised? Best wishes, Lars From: , Barbara Knight Date: Monday, 22 September 2014 05:17 To: James Bladel , Paul Diaz Cc: Lars HOFFMANN , "gnso-irtpd at icann.org" Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review James, As per my previous email, there has been some discussion within the RySG relating to recommendations #5 and #15. In my previous communication, I provided a summary of the discussion relating to recommendation #15. With regard to #5, which calls for extending the statute of limitations for filing a dispute from 6 months to 12, the discussion surrounded the goal of the recommendation in striking a balance between registrant protections and legal certainty. The question was raised as to whether extending the statute would enhance registrant protection. It was pointed out that if this is, indeed, the goal, it should be supported by data. As we have discussed on previous WG calls, having supporting data has long been a hot topic so I can understand this concern amongst the RySG. Those individuals who have expressed concerns may opt, at a future point in time, to submit a minority statement expressing their concerns. However, at this time, the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D final report. Thanks. Barbara Knight Director of Registry Compliance bknight at Verisign.com m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 VerisignInc.com From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:49 PM To: Paul Diaz Cc: Knight, Barbara; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd at icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review Thanks Paul. We still have the option of lowering our consensus level from "Full Consensus/Unanimous" to "Consensus," but will wait to hear back from Barbara. And to the Chair of IRTP-A: it's been a long and interesting road, but we are finally nearing the end. ;) Thanks- J. Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri. On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say > "RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was > some concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition > (assuming the conditions below). > > > > As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have > raised concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is > prepared to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" > policy specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this > issue up in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who > raised this issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) > or offer some edit. > > > > Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's > call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps > its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or > just wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's > fair to say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations. > > > > Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to > join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for > seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started > in 2008 ...er, maybe not! > > > > Best, P > > > > On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > > > Thanks, Barbara. > > > > I?m curious: What would be involved if the RySG does not ?fully support? a > recommendation, due to a single member?s disagreement? How would this be > reflected in our report? Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if > their membership is unanimous? > > > > Thanks? > > > > J. > > > > > > From: "Knight, Barbara" > > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28 > To: Lars Hoffmann >, > "gnso-irtpd at icann.org " > > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review > > > > Lars, > > Thank you for sending the updated report. I circulated a previous version of > the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week. > Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the > RySG is unable to voice full support at this time. The first is > Recommendation #15 - ?As a guidance to future policy development processes, > this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided > wherever possible.? One member of the RySG provided feedback that since there > are more sanctions available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making > effort to link specific violations to specific sanctions rather than > transfering this responsibility to ICANN staff. The second is Recommendation > #5 ? ?The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be > extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.? This > item is still under discussion. I will let the WG know as soon as possible > whether or not the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have > been resolved or if it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to > fully support this recommendation as well. Thanks. > > > > Barbara Knight > Director of Registry Compliance > bknight at Verisign.com > > m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343 > 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 > > VerisignInc.com > > > > From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org ] On > Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM > To: gnso-irtpd at icann.org > Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review > > > > Dear all, > > > > Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There > are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and > to which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted. > > > > To clarify the Groups? Recommendation two small amendments are suggested > (redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18. > > > > If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap. > > > > Please also find below the agenda for Monday?s call. Many thanks and have a > good weekend! > > Best wishes, > > Lars > > > > Draft Agenda ? IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 > > > > 1. Roll Call/SOI Update > > 2. Reviewing final changes > > 3. Agreeing on consensus level > > 4. Review next steps and ? if necessary ? confirm next meeting > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Mon Sep 22 16:13:19 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:13:19 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Final Report Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the Final Report ? redline and clean version. As per agreement on the call, we will keep the document open until Wednesday 16:00 UTC ? if you detect any typos or would like to suggest other non-substantive changes, please do so via the mailing list. Following any final changes I will publish the Report on Wednesday. It should then be added to the GNSO Council?s agenda for its consideration during ICANN 51 in Los Angeles. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Working Group ? and especially James and Mikey ? for their dedicated work; it has been a great pleasure to work with all of you during the past 18 months! Many thanks, best wishes, and hopefully see you in Los Angeles! Lars -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport_redline.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1969664 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IRTP-DFinalReport.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1962496 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Mon Sep 22 18:20:23 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:20:23 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Attendance MP3 IRTP D meeting - Monday 22 September 2014 Message-ID: <44465e76e59b492a94ee3d91ffafdd23@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the IRTP Part D Working Group call held on Monday 22 September 2014 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-irtp-d-20140922-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Barbara Knight ? RySG Graeme Bunton ? RrSG Arthur Zonnenberg ? RrSG James Bladel ? RrSG Angie Graves- BC Bob Mountain - RrSG Kristine Dorrain ? National Arbitration Forum Apologies: Paul Diaz ? RySG Holly Raiche ? ALAC Alan Greenberg ? ALAC Avri Doria ? NCSG ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Lars Hoffmann Steve Chan Berry Cobb Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtpd/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/B4JwAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 22 September 2014: Lars Hoffmann:Welcome to the IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014 Graeme Bunton:Aiiiieeeeeeee! Nathalie Peregrine:And Marika Konings is also on the call Nathalie Peregrine:Arthur Zonnenberg and Kristine Dorrain have also joined the call Kristine Dorrain-NAF:the acronymn for Dispute Resolution Provider would be DRP, not DPR. :) Lars Hoffmann:how about: adding - "in line with the UDRP". (and strike the blue line) Berry Cobb:So, then in what context does ICANN Compliance ever monitor DRPs? If none, then is this really going to be a "Consensus Policy"? Berry Cobb:I'm just looking at this from the angle of how this is implemented and monitored for compliance. Nathalie Peregrine:Angie Graves is on the phone line Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I like that because if the UDRP review changes the practice, then this will stay compliant Lars Hoffmann:how about this: Outcomes of all rulings by Dispute Resolution Providers (DRP) should be published on Providers? website, except in exceptional cases ? in keeping with practices currently employed in the UDRP. Kristine Dorrain-NAF:ICANN doesn't not monitor specific cases. Berry Cobb:I'm not able to talk. Sorry Berry Cobb:k, We can take this up in the IRT...... Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Yes, there has been some call for more Provider oversight, and that's fine if there are systematic issues, but I don't think ICANN is planning to put itself into the role of case-by-case Appeal board. I could be wrong, I suppose. ) Lars Hoffmann:just to clarify the language: Lars Hoffmann:? The number of incidents or communications related to changes of registrants being disputed Arthur Zonnenberg:that would be incomplete. Lars Hoffmann:? The number of incidents or communications related to disputes involving a change of registrant Lars Hoffmann:? The number of incidents or communications related to complaints or disputes involving a change of registrant Arthur Zonnenberg:if that includes abandonement its ok Arthur Zonnenberg:ie the end user giving up because policy too complicated or changed their mind Berry Cobb:Consistent and immediate can be removed. Berry Cobb:Jsut the main concern here is that what happens if we DONT get this data? There is nothing that forces CPs to provide it. Lars Hoffmann:To facilitate the gathering of relevant data, the Implementation Review Team should closely liaise with ICANN Staff to assure prompt access to necessary data. Arthur Zonnenberg:berry then we did our best to improve things. if stakeholders refuse they dont help the improving. Arthur Zonnenberg:we cant force them to Berry Cobb:And of course, Thank You James for the WG leadership! Barbara Knight:Thanks all. It has been a pleasure working with you all. Special shout out to James and the ICANN staff for the leadership and guidance. Bob Mountain:Thanks James, to use a Bladelism great job "bringing this in for a landing"! Graeme Bunton:Thanks kindly James Bladel:Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Wed Sep 24 18:10:34 2014 From: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org (Nathalie Peregrine) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:10:34 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] PLEASE RSVP: Pre- Los Angeles Policy Update Webinars - Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 & 19:00 UTC Message-ID: <13d2ea5f65fe4d75a330d15ac3a14d7a@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 2 October 2014 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, summarizing policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the IANA Functions and the ICANN Accountability track efforts. Please RSVP via this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. Updates will also be provided on topics from ICANN's Support Organizations and Advisory Committees: . ASO and Regional Internet Registries RIR Activities . GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Working Group . GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group . GNSO Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group . ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group Final Report . ALAC Policy Advice and RALO Activities . ATLAS II Implementation Progress . GAC's Remaining Advice on new generic Top-Level Domains . GAC's Implementation of ATRT2 Recommendations . RSSAC Caucus Work Parties . SSAC Advisories and Activities The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted in English only. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo at icann.org. Again, please RSVP via this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014. We look forward to welcoming you on the Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar! Best Regards, ICANN Policy Development Support Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lars.hoffmann at icann.org Thu Sep 25 16:51:07 2014 From: lars.hoffmann at icann.org (Lars Hoffmann) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:51:07 +0000 Subject: [gnso-irtpd] Final Report is published Message-ID: Dear all, There have been no further suggested edits or amendments. Therefore, I am happy to let you know that the Final Report has been published in the version that was sent to you on Monday. See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-final-25sep14-en.pdf For your information, below is the time-line for the Report from now until (hopefully) Board adoption. If you have any further question, please don?t hesitate to get in touch. Best wishes, Lars Approximate timeline for IRTP Part D PDP Final Report: Motion put to the GNSO Council ? Monday 29 September Council Vote ? 16 October Opening Public comment ? 20 October Closing Public Comment ? 10 November October (21 days) Opening Reply Period ? 10 November Closing Reply Period ? 1 December (21 days) Submission of 'GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board? to the GNSO Council ? 1 December Consideration of 'GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board' by GNSO Council - 11 December Submission of 'GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board' ? 12 December Possible ICANN Board meetings to consider the recommendations: mid January 2015 / ICANN 52 in Marrakech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5080 bytes Desc: not available URL: