ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:04:37 -0600

works for me.  is this project part of Amy Blivins’ portfolio?  you might want 
to add her to the gang.


On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 
> <Tim.Cole@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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 
> work.
> mikey
> 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.)

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