ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
  • From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:19:45 -0800

Hi All,

Happy New Year!  I hope everyone is well rested and ready to dive back into
IRTP-C.  (Ha!)

There seems to still be some lingering confusion in regards to IRTP C
implementation.  I will fully admit that I am one of the confused parties.
In the spirit of moving things along, I scheduled a call this week so that
we can decide how we would like to move this forward.  We do not currently
have a "who will do what, by when" type of implementation plan, but I would
like to start working that out with all of you.  Given many of your
extensive expertise in other WGs and IRTs as well as your knowledge of how
the discussions in IRTP-D color our efforts in IRTP-C, I would appreciate
your help in putting this plan together.

Please see the call-in details below:

Thursday, 9 January at 17:00 UTC.
Adigo code: 28462745
Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/
Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/raaeducation/

If you have any suggestions for anything you would like addressed during the
call, please let me know.

Kind regards,

Caitlin Tubergen
Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager

From:  Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:19 AM
To:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>,
"gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Cole
Subject:  Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification

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


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

> 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
> <http://www.haven2.com/> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook,
> LinkedIn, etc.)

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com
<http://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