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

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fair enough.  While unanimity may be rare, it is not impossible.  The result
of the RAP WG is a decent example where much agreement was found.

There is no middle ground for recommendation #3.  How can we call this Rough
Consensus, when the last poll on this Recommendation for our Interim Report
achieved Unanimous Consensus?  If anything about this recommendation will be
taken out of context, it will be a result of downgrading a recommendation to
Rough Consensus when all members polled originally supported the
recommendation.  If stakeholders of this WG do not want this recommendation
to move forward, then I support polling of our final recommendation.  I
would rather kick this back to the Council as "Strong Support & Significant
Opposition" or "No Consensus" rather than fool the community of a Rough
Consensus designation even though no WG member chose to reject it.

Michele &/or Marika, with respect to the WG's final proposed recommendations
will we be taking one last polling of consensus on the recommendations for
publish in the final report?  If I recall correctly from RAP, we conducted
this exercise and published WG results in the final report.  I trust we will
do the same here.  I feel it will be important to understand and document
the outcomes so that the community is fully informed of deliberations and
results of the WG.

Thank you.  B


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


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:23 PM
To: Diaz, Paul; Berry Cobb; Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: 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