RE: [bc-gnso] IRTP-B -- heads up

["Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just for background purposes, can you tell us more about who is pushing the "or 
other external legal requirements" language and what arguments they put forth 
in support?  I agree with the concern that this language is extremely vague and 
invites mischief.

Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670


________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Mike O'Connor
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:02 AM
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] IRTP-B -- heads up

thanks Mike!

that connection across to the IPC folks would be especially helpful.

mikey


On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

Thanks Mikey for raising these issues, and maintaining a voice of 
“non-registrar” reason in that WG.
I agree with you on both points, and particularly think the second one is 
fairly huge.  So I will echo your comments to the WG list, fwiw.  I also will 
raise these issues in the IPC and see if any of them will speak up too.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 6:29 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] IRTP-B -- heads up
hi all,
and especially those of you who participated in the IRTP working group.
there's a pretty important end-game being played out in IRTP-B.  it would be 
helpful if those who participated in the working group would dial back in and 
make comments to the list.  and those of you who didn't also will have an 
opportunity to weigh in.
i'm lobbying for two changes (here's what i posted to the working-group list):
Rec #8
i like the idea of ensuring that the link is preserved within WHOIS output.
but when we drafted this recommendation, our intent was to deliver the 
definition of the status code *within* WHOIS, not through a link to a list 
somewhere else.  the link works fine for sophisticated consumers of WHOIS but, 
in my opinion, does not reach the "clarify WHOIS status codes" goal that we 
were striving for when we wrote this.  i'd like to take up this discussion one 
more time.  this dilution of our recommendation hasn't been sufficiently 
justified in my view -- certainly "technical complexity" doesn't cut it.  even 
i, a long-dead programmer, could come up with code to do this in an afternoon, 
complete with lookups that scraped the definitions off the InterNIC page (so 
that updates would automatically flow through my code to the output).
Rec #9
this one still suffers from the vagueness that we discussed on our last call.  
the culprit is in this phrase -- "the registrar may still be permitted or 
required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the 
UDRP or [sic] other ICANN consensus policies or legal requirements."
the trouble comes in the phrase "or legal requirements."  *which* legal 
requirements?  legal requirements imposed by the registrar?  or *external* 
legal requirements?  i'd be a bit more cheerful with wording like this -- "the 
registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration 
changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP, ICANN consensus policies or other 
external legal requirements."
i'm not keen on allowing registrar-imposed legal requirements into this policy 
-- that's effectively opening the door for registrars to block just about any 
transfer, the prevention of which was one of the primary reasons the IRTP was 
instituted in the first place.
i'm pretty much the only non-Registrar commenting at this point.  we have a 
working group developing policy constraining Registrar behavior that is: 
chaired by a Registrar, is dominated by Registrar participants, has a 
Council-Liaison that's a Registrar and reports to a Council that's chaired by a 
Registrar.  so i'm feeling a little lonely at the moment.   :-)
i'm forwarding a post from the Chair of the WG in which lays out the process.  
note that the recommendations are reversed and have different designations.  
Recommendation 8 in the IRTP report corresponds to RESOLVED (E) while 
Recommendation 9 corresponds to RESOLVED (D).  sorry about that -- above my 
pay-grade.  the main point is that we could use a few more comments from 
non-Registrars (both on and off the WG).
thanks,
mikey
Begin forwarded message:


From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" 
<michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: October 17, 2011 5:26:55 AM CDT
To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B .. Proposals etc

Dear All

It's great seeing some healthy discussions on the mailing list, so before 
jumping ahead and setting up any new calls, I'd like to encourage others to 
express their views on the mailing list.

As a reminder, please note that the recommendations as resolved by the GNSO 
Council in relation to these two issues are as follows:

RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation 
which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in 
a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or 
unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such 
a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in 
relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - 
part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to 
approve the recommendation.

RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation 
regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding 
Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a 
proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to 
meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG 
deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP 
Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock 
has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, 
the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.

Also note that Staff is planning to put out these proposals for community 
input, so even if the WG is not able to reach a common position on the 
proposals, individual members will have an opportunity to share their views as 
part of the public comment forum.

I'm sure Staff is also reviewing these comments and will try to address these 
in the best way possible.

I'd also like to remind you that an IRTP Update has been scheduled to take 
place at the ICANN meeting in Dakar on Thursday from 10.00 – 11.30 
(seehttp://dakar42.icann.org/node/27007) during which you will have another 
opportunity to share your views.

Regards

Michele



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.biz
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

- - - - - - - - -
phone    651-647-6109
fax                          866-280-2356
web        http://www.haven2.com
handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

- - - - - - - - -
phone  651-647-6109
fax   866-280-2356
web  http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)