[GNSO-TPR] [Ext] Re: For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations

Wed Feb 15 20:51:45 UTC 2023

It seems much to ask the Losing Registrar to figure out who the Gaining
Registrar's reseller is.  It might help a bit if Losing Registrars are
required to name the Gaining Registrar, since it is always available at the
ICANN site they are providing a link to.  But that won't help when the
transfer is initiated by a reseller.  Nobody knows that except the reseller
and the Gaining Registrar, and perhaps a very few very savvy registrants.

[image: Logo]

Mike Rodenbaugh

address:

548 Market Street, Box 55819

San Francisco, CA 94104

email:

mike at rodenbaugh.com

phone:

+1 (415) 738-8087

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:44 PM Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Why can't the TPR WG require something more forthcoming for the
> registrants?
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Steve, good point.  I guess those registrars and their resellers
>> will have to sort out that inevitable confusion.
>>
>> Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated.
>>
>> [image: Logo]
>>
>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>
>> address:
>>
>> 548 Market Street, Box 55819
>>
>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>>
>> email:
>>
>> mike at rodenbaugh.com
>>
>> phone:
>>
>> +1 (415) 738-8087
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through
>>> resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much
>>> less the IANA ID.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID
>>>> assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list
>>>> of IANA IDs is managed on this page:
>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be
>>>> meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the
>>>> Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the
>>>> Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to
>>>> ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding
>>>> IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be
>>>> included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in
>>>> identifying the registrar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Emily
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
>>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52
>>>> *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>>>> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr at icann.org" <gnso-tpr at icann.org>
>>>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A
>>>> Initial Report & Recommendations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Emily.  I have one hopefully quick question.  Is IANA ID defined
>>>> anywhere in the Policy?  Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar
>>>> rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [image: Image removed by sender. Logo]
>>>>
>>>> *Mike Rodenbaugh*
>>>>
>>>> *address:*
>>>>
>>>> 548 Market Street, Box 55819
>>>>
>>>> San Francisco, CA 94104
>>>>
>>>> *email:*
>>>>
>>>> mike at rodenbaugh.com
>>>>
>>>> *phone:*
>>>>
>>>> +1 (415) 738-8087
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear working group members,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide
>>>> an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working
>>>> group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public
>>>>    comments and considering small group outputs.
>>>>    - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more
>>>>    fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations.
>>>>    - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes
>>>>    are referenced, etc.
>>>>    - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working
>>>>    group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus
>>>> on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted
>>>> in yellow.*
>>>>
>>>>    - *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) *
>>>>    - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
>>>>
>>>> Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report
>>>> that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore
>>>> these highlights for now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups
>>>> you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please
>>>> enter them here [docs.google.com]
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0tiD5V_PE4zxnIKfD46esX6EtHeOnEw/edit__;!!PtGJab4!_2POme06lu4MsIzOmyW4etMBYeNlLpbe1eEdgjauP9YA5CBua0gNGWejnTzSEFfd46tinO8LjE0xVDI5ovxMRFrf$>.
>>>> *For each item, please include:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - Report version (the date listed in the header of the document)
>>>>    and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the
>>>>    document).
>>>>    - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a
>>>>    group, input should be in coordination with these other members.
>>>>    - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are
>>>>    proposing the revision.
>>>>    - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like
>>>>    to see added/removed/edited.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to
>>>> considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for
>>>> returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion
>>>> of Phase 2 topics. *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Emily Barabas
>>>>
>>>> Policy Development Support Senior Manager
>>>>
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>
>>>> Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
>>>>
>>>> www.icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GNSO-TPR mailing list
>>>> GNSO-TPR at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GNSO-TPR mailing list
>>>> GNSO-TPR at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-tpr/attachments/20230215/0882b013/attachment-0001.html>