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

Wed Oct 23 18:24:18 UTC 2019

This was really helpful. Thanks, Sarah and Dennis!

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 2:17 PM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang at icann.org>, "irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org" <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IRT.RegDataPolicy] About the process of Call to Close

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><mailto:irt.regdatapolicy-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sarah Wyld <swyld at tucows.com><mailto:swyld at tucows.com>
Organization: Tucows
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 07:51
To: "irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org"<mailto:irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org> <irt.regdatapolicy at icann.org><mailto: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/20191023/41c406a8/attachment.html>