<div dir='auto'>Txs Sam!!!<div dir="auto"><br><div dir="auto"> We should have a call on this laundry list before Cancun. Policy Committee????</div><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Thanks! Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 6, 2020 10:17, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>
</p><p>NPOC Colleagues, </p>
We will likely be getting this list of twelve “to do” items
from our GNSO Councilors (several whom are new in their
positions). As you can
see, they have a heavy load to carry, so they will need our help.
Some items
are of particular interest to our positions as stakeholder groups.
<i><font color="#804040">This is just
an NPOC Discuss posting with some commentary to help move
things along.</font> </i><br />
<p>Sam L. <br />
</p><p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">a)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'"> </span><i>Expired
Registration Recovery Policy – Policy Review & Rec 27
(ERRP-PR)</i> - The
ERRP Consensus Policy became effective 31 Aug 2013 as a result
of adopted
recommendations produced from the GNSO’s Post Expiration Domain
Name Recovery
(PEDNR) PDP WG. That WG deliberated on issues related to the
expiration of
domain names and to what extent a Registrant should be able to
recover domain
names after they expire.</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">b)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'"> </span><b><i>Policy
& Implementation Recommendations Review</i></b> - The
GNSO Council resolved
in June 2015 that a “review of these recommendations is carried
out at the
latest five years following their implementation to assess
whether the
recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or
whether any
further enhancements or changes are needed”. </p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">c)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>EPDP on the Temporary Specification
on gTLD
Registration Data (Phase 3)</i> – addressing items that are
addressed in phase
2 such as priority 2 items that are dependent on external
factors. </p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">d)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Review of All Rights Protection
Mechanisms in
All gTLDs PDP</i> – Phase 2 Review of UDRP (RPM)</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">e)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Transfer Policy – Policy Review
Scoping Team
-</i> ICANN Org delivered the most recent version of the
Transfer Policy Status
Report (TPSR) to the GNSO Council on 22 April 2019. The TPSR
provides details
on the noted purposes of the Transfer Policy (formerly known as
the
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)), an overview of the
domain name
transfer process, the impact of the Temporary Specification and
the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) on the Transfer Policy,
metrics
related to the Transfer Policy, and a summary of the public
comments and survey
responses to the published TPSR. The GNSO Council formed a
Transfer Policy
Review Scoping Team to scope the work and advise the Council on
next steps.</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">f)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Internationalized Domain Names</i> -
The GNSO
Council established a scoping team to study the full extent of
the impacts from
both the IDN Variant TLD Recommendations and the IDN Guidelines
upon existing
registry agreements and future applicants, to determine the
range of issues and
appropriate mechanisms needed to address them (e.g., policy
development, direct
engagement with ICANN Org, other). This scoping team is limited
to the tasks of
identifying the scope of the issues and making a recommendation
to the GNSO
Council on the best mechanism(s) for resolution. Once in receipt
of the
recommendations from the scoping team, the GNSO Council will
determine the
appropriate next steps. </p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">g)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>WHOIS Procedure Implementation
Advisory Group</i>
– (WPIAG) – group tasked to review <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:'arial' , sans-serif">ICANN
Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Laws</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">h)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>DNS Abuse</i> – potential work
addressing DNS
Abuse following community wide discussions on this topic</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">i)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><b><i>Multistakeholder Model Evolution</i></b>
/
PDP improvements – work items coming out community wide
discussions concerning
the MS Evolution and/or PDP 3.0 follow up items.</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">j)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Rec 27<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif">[1]</span></b></a>:
Review of Thick RDDS (Whois) Transition Policy</i> for .COM,
.NET, and .JOBS &
Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent
Labeling and Display</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">k)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Rec 27: Review of Proxy and Privacy
Services</i>
Accreditation & Translation & Transliteration of Contact
Information</p>
<p style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:-0.25in">l)<span style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span><i>Rec 27: Review of Whois Data
Reminder Policy</i>,
Restored Names Accuracy Policy; Additional Whois Information
Policy; Whois
Marketing Restriction Policy; Registry Services Evaluation
Policy; Expired
Domain Deletion Policy; AGP Limits Policy. </p>
<div><br clear="all" />
<hr width="33%" size="1" align="left" />
<div>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'calibri' , sans-serif">[1]</span></a>
Recommendation 27 from EPDP Phase 1: The EPDP Team
recommends that as part of
the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates
are made to the
following existing policies / procedures, and any others
that may have been
omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy
recommendations as, for
example, a number of these refer to administrative and/or
technical contact
which will no longer be required data elements. For the
purposes of this
survey, items have been clustered based on initial
assessment of effort
required to resolve and possible linkage. However, the
Council may decide to
deal with these items in a different cluster or
individually. </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>