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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not sure what the calendar has to do with anything. Like Mike, I thought we put 
this issue to bed months ago, so I’m surprised to see it still coming up.

Thanks-

J.


From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:36
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:theo.geurts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
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] 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<mailto: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.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),
 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/.

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