[IRT.RegDataPolicy] About the process of Call to Close

Wed Oct 23 18:18:48 UTC 2019

Thanks Dennis, this was indeed helpful and sounds like a good plan to
me. Looking forward to seeing the team in Montreal!!

-- 
Sarah Wyld
Domains Product Team
Tucows
+1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392

On 10/23/2019 1:19 PM, Dennis Chang wrote:
>
> Thanks Sarah for your question on the process noted in your reply to
> Rec 22 Call to Close IRT Comment.
>
>  
>
> The Calls to Close for IRT Comments are meant to let you know that
> we’ve sufficiently reviewed the analysis completed and that we agree
> with the course of action or plan described in the analysis document.
>
>  
>
> If we indicate that there is “No IPT or IRT Action” on the analysis
> document and we close the IRT comment, we will consider this to be an
> agreement and we will expect no tasks for IPT or IRT to be generated
> by this recommendation.
>
>  
>
> In cases, where “GNSO Action” is indicated, our task may be considered
> completed upon notification or reminder to GNSO has been concluded.
>
>  
>
> Likewise, “EPDP Phase 2 Team task” is sited, this could be an action
> for IPT but not IRT. IPT’s action is to provide the information
> requested but IRT is not required to review since the recommendation
> specifies the action to for the EPDP Phase 2 team.
>
>  
>
> Very importantly, when we see “No Policy Language” in the analysis and
> we close the document without an objection, we will all know not to be
> looking for policy language associated with that recommendation.
>
>  
>
> For those with the proposed policy language being called to close
> means to get your attention to see if the latest policy is good enough
> to merge in to the complete Policy Language document.  To be clear,
> the one document containing all policy language is expected to contain
> languages that not all IRT members agree with and we’ll decide a point
> when it would be more effective to continue the discussion on the
> “one-doc” vs “multiple-docs.”
>
>  
>
> Perhaps using Rec 28 as an example will help.  The “Policy Work” is
> everything we have to do to get this policy published and implemented
> but we are asking to close the Analysis document because we believe we
> have an agreement on our way forward having completed the
> recommendation review and analysis.
>
>  
>
> To specifically address Rec 22 as an example, DPAs are key policy work
> that we know we have to do.
>
> But as the analysis document indicates, we do not see additional
> policy language needed in the Consensus Policy language.
>
> I believe we have an agreement already but the “Call to Close” is to
> bring your attention to it one more time to ensure our agreement.
>
>  
>
> This policy is complex inter-dependent and there is a high risk of us
> falling in to a trap of “analysis paralyses.”  I ask for your
> understanding when I say “out-of-scope,” I don’t mean to be rude but I
> am trying to control our project scope.  Please don’t hesitate to ask
> questions on the process as well as the content. I hope this is helpful
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Dennis Chang
>
>  
>
> *From: *"IRT.RegDataPolicy" <irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com>
> *Organization: *Tucows
> *Date: *Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 07:51
> *To: *"irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] Rec22 IRT comments closing - DPA
> ICANN org & DRP
>
>  
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Kind of a basic question, but, can you please confirm that these calls
> to close comments are just that -- confirmation that no-one has any
> further comments -- and are not also confirmations that we have
> reached consensus and can close our policy work for the recommendation?
>
> Looking at this Rec 22 as an example, I have no further comments but
> there are open concerns remaining, and so I'd think the policy work
> remains in progress until we've resolved those open issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- 
> Sarah Wyld
> Domains Product Team
> Tucows
> +1.416 535 0123 Ext. 1392
>  
>  
>
> On 10/18/2019 11:42 PM, Dennis Chang wrote:
>
>     Dear IRT,
>
>      
>
>     Calling to close IRT comments on the recommendation #22 regarding
>     the data protection agreements between ICANN org and the dispute
>     resolution providers
>
>     56
>
>     	
>
>     _IRT review closing Recommendation #22 Analysis - DPA-ICANNorg&DRP
>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JBzpxcp1UK4eU5L32buREH7LXEwolLMi4qfEECu1XVw/edit>_
>
>     	
>
>     20191030
>
>      
>
>     -- 
>
>     Kind Regards,
>
>     Dennis S. Chang
>
>     GDD Programs Director
>
>     Phone: +1 213 293 7889
>
>     Sykpe: dennisSchang
>
>     www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> One World – One Internet
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list
>
>     IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org <mailto:IRT.RegDataPolicy at icann.org>
>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
>
>      
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20191023/5ce783ee/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/irt.regdatapolicy/attachments/20191023/5ce783ee/signature.asc>