Re: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Updated recommendations overview

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

In relation to your comment 'I have trouble categorizing this
Recommendation as "Unanimous"
as at least half the group had some hesitation about agreeing. Would
prefer "Strong Support.', please note that the following designations are
available to the WG (as outlined in the IRTP Part B WG Charter):

* Unanimous consensus position
* Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees
but most agree
* Strong support but significant opposition
* Minority viewpoint(s)


A designation of Strong support also implies significant opposition, which
I'm not sure is the case here, but I'll leave that up to the WG to discuss.

Best regards,

Marika

On 11/01/11 14:43, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Marika and IRTP-B Team:
>
>Thanks for putting together this list.  Here are a few comments /
>observations:
>
>
>Rec #3:
>  Since our report already notes that the "Thick" model is required for
>New gTLDs, this recommendation only applies to COM/NET, correct?  If so,
>we should explicitly state this.
>  Also, I have trouble categorizing this Recommendation as "Unanimous"
>as at least half the group had some hesitation about agreeing.  Would
>prefer "Strong Support."
>
>
>Rec #4:  
>  After some internal discussions, I would now favor Simonetta's
>proposal to refer this to a specialized group.  We have acknowledged a
>missing function ("Change of Control"), which is essential to (and
>distinct from) traditional IRTP functions, and would prefer not to see
>this group try to tackle this by San Francisco.
>
>
>Rec #6:
>  I spoke with our URDP team regarding this, and they acknowledge that
>there are issues / differences of interpretation on how transfer
>requests are handled w.r.t. UDRP. But the issue is in the language of
>the UDRP, not the IRTP.  Specifically, they point out that some
>registrars implement UDRP Sec. 8 differently, specifically 8(b) which
>says that we must obtain written confirmation from the "Gaining"
>registrar that the proceeding will continue after the transfer.  Our
>team notes that this is extraordinarily rare.
>
>
>Rec #7:  
>  We should be careful not to include in our Recommendations any
>comments or speculation about what effect a policy will have on Registry
>or Registrar prices.  While this may in fact be the case, including it
>in the recommendations could create issues / resistance at the next
>level (Council).
>
>
>Rec #8:  
>  In this Recommendation we should clarify whether Registries blocking
>transfer requests on EPP-locked names is a "policy" or "protocol /
>practice."  If Registries are doing this at their own discretion, then
>we shouldn't assume this will always be the case.  If we can find the
>policy provisions that support this, we should cite them.  If none
>exist, we should recommend one.
>
>
>
>Look forward to discussing these today.  Thanks!
>
>J.
>
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] Updated recommendations overview
>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Mon, January 10, 2011 3:28 am
>To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Dear All,
>
>
>Please find attached the updated recommendations overview which
>incorporates the changes discussed at last week's meeting and
>suggestions posted on the mailing list.
>
>
>With best regards,
>
>
>Marika
>