ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-impl-irtpc-rt]


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

Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing

  • To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
  • From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:36:03 -0500

i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on 
February 3rd **2014**  i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D 
today.  

i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of 
tweaking this 3 page draft.  a cynical blogger could make the point that 
registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet.

enough.   

m

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be 
> considered a “material change” by the Registrar.  Has this changed?
> 
> Sorry I’m so far behind…
> 
> J.
> 
> From: <owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>> on behalf of Theo Geurts 
> <theo.geurts@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:theo.geurts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 
> To: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + 
> implementation timing
> 
> It's looking pretty good, 
> 
> However i got a question. 
> 
> What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the 
> privacy service is automatically terminated ?
> Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ?  
> Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior 
> registrant. 
> 
> I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant 
> does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. 
> Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and 
> start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather 
> messy, but is an option.
> 
> Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant 
> does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. 
> 
> Thank you. 
> 
> Theo 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16
> Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + 
> implementation timing
> 
> looks fine from here.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> m
> 
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Thanks, Michele.  
> 
> The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback 
> regarding implementation timing.
> 
> As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any 
> feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, 
> Thursday, 30 July.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Caitlin 
> 
> 
> From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM
> To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + 
> implementation timing
> 
> Caitlin
> 
> Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback 
> to you
> 
> Regards
> 
> Michele 
> 
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Hosting & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/ <http://www.blacknight.host/>
> http://www.mneylon.social <http://www.mneylon.social/>
> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal 
> 
> On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Team.
>  
> This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by 
> Thursday, 30 July.  If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will 
> consider the text final.
>  
> Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance 
> once the policy is announced.  The default policy cycle is six months 
> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf
>  
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf>),
>  but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six 
> months is enough time.  We may, for example, choose to deviate from the 
> standard six-month cycle.
>  
> As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you 
> have over the email list.
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Caitlin 
> 
> 
> From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM
> To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
> 
> Hi, Team.
> 
> For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording 
> here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ 
> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/>.
> 
> I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a 
> result of today’s call.  There are also a few numbering changes.  
> 
> There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on.  Specifically, 
> please take a look at:
> 
> (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). 
> 
> (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv).  (The 
> IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update 
> Whois information in the event of potential abuse). 
> 
> Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance 
> once the policy is announced.  The default policy cycle is six months 
> (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf
>  
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may15-en.pdf>),
>  but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six 
> months is enough time.  We may, for example, choose to deviate from the 
> standard six month cycle.
> 
> If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle 
> timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s 
> date.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Caitlin Tubergen
> Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager
> ICANN
> 
> 
> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx>
> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx>
> 
> 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, 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