ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification

  • To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 07:19:29 -0600

hi Marika,

sorry this reply took so long.  i've gotten overloaded and am working to get 
that fixed.  meanwhile, response-time has slowed.

i completely support your thoughts, and (since they're overloaded too) i'll add 
that i bet James and Michele would be OK with this approach as well.  a key 
component of all this is figuring out how IRTP-C is going to be implemented.  
that would have the added benefit of providing more clarity to the IRTP-D 
efforts around the Registrant's access to the TDRP.

so.  i'm willing to help figure this out.  but i'm not clear how we're 
organized.  do we have a project leader?  is there a charter that describes the 
work that needs to be done, who's going to do what, by when, etc?  where can i 
help during the course of that work?  it would definitely be nice to have a 
plan in place by Singapore, since we're also trying to have an IRTP-D draft 
done by then and the IRTP-C implementation approach informs the IRTP-D work.


On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:23 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi All,
> As I've said before, I think we need to distinguish between implementation 
> effective date and the development of the implementation plan. If I've 
> understood James and Michele correctly, I think they are referring to the 
> implementation effective date when they are talking about 'pausing' and 
> considering rolling out changes at fixed points in the year. However, before 
> being able to talk about pausing or when sometimes becomes in effect, I think 
> we first need an actual implementation plan. As there were quite a number of 
> issues that needed to be worked out in relation to IRTP Part C as part of the 
> implementation discussions, I think there is still plenty to do before we 
> even get to the stage of considering when this could/would become into 
> effect. Also, by the time we have worked through those items it may become 
> more clear whether or not any of the proposed recommendations of IRTP Part D 
> need to be tied into the implementation effective date of IRTP Part C. 
> Presumably having an actual implementation plan would also allow for more 
> effective planning by contracted parties, even if the implementation 
> effective date is for example a year out, as they can already anticipate what 
> needs to happen in order for them to be ready by that date. As the IRTP Part 
> C recommendations were adopted by the Board about a year ago, wouldn't it be 
> nice if we could share a proposed implementation plan with the community by 
> Singapore (even if it means that the actual changes wouldn't come into effect 
> until later)?
> Best regards,
> Marika
> From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday 11 December 2013 00:16
> To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Cole 
> <Tim.Cole@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification 
> hi Caitlin.
> what??  you don't follow what we're saying?  humph.  *I* don't follow what 
> we're saying half the time.  ;-)
> it would probably do us all some good to quickly schedule an IRTP C IRT call 
> to work through the implications of all this.
> -- the IRTP-D conversations have been inconsistent about the scope of the 
> delay to IRTP-C implementation.  sometimes we say "all of it" sometimes we 
> say "some of it" and when we say "some" we change which bits we're talking 
> about.  i'm glad to see that you're grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and 
> saying "wait.  what??"  
> -- i'm not sure whether we need to pause *all* of C or just parts of it.  
> that requires more thought -- maybe drag Marika into that thought process?
> -- we *have* uncovered a problem with the IRTP-C recommendation during 
> IRTP-D.  in C, we created this whole new kind of transfer category -- the 
> inter REGISTRANT transfer.  we wrote a lot about that process, but then 
> punted on the dispute-resolution part of that and said "sure, TDRP can handle 
> that."  turns out that's more complicated than we thought and we're just 
> wading through that discussion right now in D.  it would be good to 
> coordinate what we do in D with what's being done in the implementation of C.
> -- i'm starting to rethink the face to face meeting idea.  i'd like to ponder 
> than some more -- but the ICANN level of activity just went off the scale 
> with all this Brazil stuff (on top of all the other stuff).  we might want to 
> schedule a few *long* teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face 
> meetings and see where that takes us.  a lot cheaper and a lot less 
> disruptive of schedules and lives.
> just a few random thoughts.  i don't see how you people with day jobs get 
> through all this ICANN stuff.  it's pretty heavy-duty right now.
> thanks for your note.  let's bat this around a little more and see where we 
> land.
> mikey
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>> Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT,
>> I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely.  As it was pretty early 
>> Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood 
>> the effect of various comments made during the session.  I have attached the 
>> transcript for ease of reference.
>> On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation 
>> efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D 
>> discussions.  I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation 
>> efforts".  During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a 
>> face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. 
>>  I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should 
>> still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires.  
>> Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should 
>> allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey 
>> asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays.  I have included 
>> a few points below to consider:
>> Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the 
>> new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the 
>> pipeline including but not limited to:
>> the 2013 RAA;
>> the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP);
>> IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9;  and
>> IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3  
>> To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an 
>> implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles 
>> more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate 
>> into their business models.  
>> Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with 
>> recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team 
>> is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused.  It may 
>> also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C 
>> Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working 
>> Group.
>> Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate.   Also, please 
>> let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for 
>> January or February, depending on availability.  I want to keep the ball 
>> rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of 
>> the group.
>> Kind regards,
>> Caitlin Tubergen
>> Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager
>> <transcript-irtp-d-20nov13-en[2][2][1].pdf>
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: 
> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy