[gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review

[Paul Diaz]

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 <jbladel at godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> 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" <BKnight at verisign.com<mailto:BKnight at verisign.com>>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28
To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>>, "gnso-irtpd at icann.org<mailto:gnso-irtpd at icann.org>" <gnso-irtpd at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:bknight at Verisign.com>

m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/>

From: owner-gnso-irtpd at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-irtpd/attachments/20140919/8bb8b7f1/attachment.html>