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