RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For final review - IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report
Hi Marika, Thanks for sending this along. I have reviewed it and have a few minor edits which are redlined in the attached. I also asked Scott Hollenbeck to take a look at it and he has provided feedback that RFC 2832 is actually the RRP specifications which no one is using any longer. He also indicated that the most current EPP RFC specifications are numbered from 5730 - 5734 and, therefore, all of the 37XX RFC references throughout the document should be updated to 57XX RFC references. He also indicated that the text string that's an optional part of the domain status value is part of the EPP core specification - it's not an extension. Additional features beyond that text string would require a new extension. I have included his suggested changes to the text on page 36 to clarify this. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I may be of further assistance. Many thanks. Barbara Steele Compliance Officer / Director of Policy From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 5:40 AM To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For final review - IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report Importance: High Dear All, Please find posted on the wiki (https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/) for final review the IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report. To facilitate your review, I have posted both a redline as well as a clean version. As discussed on our call yesterday, the main changes include: * The following paragraph in relation to the ETRP dispute resolution mechanism has been added: The WG agrees that there should be a mechanism to dispute an ETRP but has not reached agreement on how such a mechanism might work. The WG hopes to receive further input during the public comment period on the elements an ETRP dispute mechanism should contain and whether it should be an integral part of the ETRP or another existing dispute resolution mechanism e.g. the TDRP. This paragraph has replaced provision 5 of the proposed ETRP. * The modified version of recommendation D as proposed by Mikey to clarify the previous version (no substance change) * Included the provision related to registrant title as a minority view: Minority viewpoint - one member of the WG supported adding the following provision to section 3.1 of the proposed ETRP: The PTRa shall distribute a Registrant's Title to each Registrant in a communication directly to the Registrant without notice to any of the other contacts noted in the associated WHOIS records, including the Administrative Contact. Such a Registrant's Title shall include a unique identifier as determined by the Registrar for the purpose of providing the Registrant with a mechanism for identification as the Registrant. * Included attendance information Please share any comments / edits / suggestions you may have with the mailing list as soon as possible, but at the latest by close of business (wherever you are) on Friday 28 May. Following that the Initial Report will be posted and submitted to the GNSO Council. As discussed, the public comment forum will open for a period of 20 days, as prescribed by the ICANN by-laws, after the ICANN meeting in Brussels (proposed start date: 5 July). Thanks, Marika Attachment:
IRTP Part B Initial Report - Clean - Updated 26 May 2010_BKS.doc Attachment:
smime.p7s
|