RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP - Recommendations #3 & #4
I agree Paul. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:45 PM To: Berry Cobb; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP - Recommendations #3 & #4 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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|