RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP - Recommendations #3 & #4

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Berry & Team,

Re: Recommendation 3, "unanimity" is a rare occurrence on ICANN-related issues, 
probably because nothing ICANN-related is ever simple or discrete (even if we 
want it to be).  

While the benefits of thick WHOIS to facilitate transfer requests has been 
demonstrated, I (for one) am NOT willing to characterize the WG's position as 
"Unanimous Consensus."  In my view, the subtlety of a transfer-focused 
recommendation versus a general policy statement (i.e. all gTLDs must be thick) 
will be lost once this goes out to the broader community.  I do not believe it 
is this WG's role or mandate to color a future/potential PDP on mandatory thick 
WHOIS gTLD registries.  I believe that a "unanimous consensus" recommendation 
likely will be taken out of context as a "clear call to action" by those who 
support mandatory thick WHOIS for all gTLDs.  I have significant concerns about 
the latter (which I expect will be aired/addressed in the future PDP) and am 
unwilling to risk my fears coming to pass by supporting a "unanimous consent" 
position in this WG.

Rough Consensus is more than enough from this WG to give advocates of mandatory 
thick WHOIS gTLDs what they need to request a PDP on the issue.  I'm confident 
that if certain Constituencies and/or Stakeholder Groups feel strongly about 
it, their Councilors will act on the issue (and not allow it to be swept under 
the rug).

Regards, P

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:11 PM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP - Recommendations #3 & #4

Team,

Recommendation #3:
I really have a hard time understanding the change from Unanimous Consensus to 
Rough Consensus.  What is the fear of sending a clear message that Thick WHOIS 
is the root of several IRTP issues in addition to issues external of IRTP?  As 
stated in the latest draft, we are not recommending that Thick WHOIS be 
implemented, but we are recommending that a PDP be created to review it.

Unless I am mistaken, we ALL agree that "In the Context of IRTP," Thick WHOIS 
eliminates some of the process issues around the transfer of domains.  If we 
have Unanimous Consensus on this, then how can we not have Unanimous Consensus 
on recommending a PDP to review it?  Anything less only waters down the 
recommendation, which will be swept under the rug, and three years from now we 
have to address it again.

On a somewhat separate topic, it is new news to me that each Registrar can 
choose what information to reveal on WHOIS.  Why is this?  This should be a 
defined standard across all gTLDs.  Unless I am missing something, a standard 
of this sort should not affect differentiation in the market place.


Recommendation #4:
Now having started the swimlane exercise of IRTP, I am beginning to side with 
Simonetta's revision to Recommendation #4.  Change of Control seems to be the 
foundation for IRTP.  If it changes, it will impact the IRTP process.  In my 
view when reviewing the IRTP swimlane I sent out today, it quickly obvious that 
the process becomes more complicated when an additional role "Admin Contact" 
can invoke/approve the transfer.  Can anyone point me to how all four WHOIS 
roles were defined in the creation of Thick WHOIS?  

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://infinityportals.com
720.839.5735