RE: [gnso-irtpc] For your review - Recommendation Charter Question C

["Knight, Barbara" <BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry for the lateness in sending along feedback from the RySG, specifically 
those registries that are most impacted, on this item.  I like the changes that 
Bob made as I think that it does provide more flexibility for the impacted 
registrars but I also want to pass along alternative language that Paul Dias 
has proposed.  It is as follows:


The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the 
Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's thick WHOIS.  Existing gTLD Registry 
operators that currently use prorprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they 
must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID.

It narrows the scope of what the WG is suggesting to address the specific issue 
at hand and it allows those registries that support TLDs for which an IANA ID 
may not be necessary (i.e. some country code or other TLDs that do not require 
a registrar to be ICANN accredited) to continue to utilize their proprietary 
IDs to identify registrars and manage their transactions.  I am not sure that 
revisiting the use of proprietary IDs in 24 months will find that registries 
are using them any differently so I don't know that it makes sense for us 
revisit this option then.



Barbara Knight
Director of Policy


VerisignInc.com<http://www.verisigninc.com/>

This message (including any attachments) is  intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If 
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us 
immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) 
delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.

[Verisign(tm)]



From: owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Bob Mountain
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:09 AM
To: Marika Konings; IRTPC Working Group
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpc] For your review - Recommendation Charter Question C

Hey All,
No surprise but upon reading the latest version I realized one of the 
paragraphs that I wrote doesn't make any sense.  Made the following change:

NEW TEXT:  Recommendation Charter Question C: the WG recommends that new 
Registries standardize onIANA IDs. The WG also recommends that existing 
Registries that currently use proprietary IDs have the option to switch to use 
IANA IDs, or continue to use their proprietary IDs. Finally the WG recommends 
that the option to maintain the use of proprietary IDs be reviewed in 24 months 
and reconsidered at that point in time.

PREVIOUS TEXT:  Recommendation Charter Question C: the WG recommends that new 
Registries standardize onIANA IDs. The WG also recommends that existing 
Registries that currently use proprietary IDs switch to use IANA IDs, but these 
Registries will be allowed to maintain the option to continue to use their 
proprietary IDs. Finally the WG recommends that the option to maintain the use 
of proprietary IDs be reviewed in 24 months and reconsidered at that point in 
time.

Comments welcome and revised document attached.

Perhaps one of the RySG reps can provide some additional rationale to include 
under the impact assessment to explain why incumbents would be exempt for now?

Best!
Mtn.

--
Bob Mountain
Senior Vice President
Business Development
[cid:9F696FD4-E9C1-427D-B0C8-E6F83C4FFF89]
E: mtn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bmountain@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
P: +1 781.839.2871    F: +1 781.839.2801  C: +1 508-878-0469

Visit us at NameMedia.com<http://www.namemedia.com/>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any documents attached to it may 
contain confidential or proprietary information or content. The transmission is 
intended solely for the information or use of the individuals addressed, or 
copied, as intended recipients. If you are not a named recipient, or you were 
otherwise sent this by mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
copying, distribution or taking of any action as a result of or in reliance on 
the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this message has been 
received in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return 
e-mail. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:28 AM
To: IRTPC Working Group <gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-irtpc] For your review - Recommendation Charter Question C

And as promised, the proposed language for the recommendation for Charter 
Question C, including expected impact section. I recall that someone during the 
call yesterday suggested a different timeframe for review, but I didn't catch 
what the proposed change was exactly, so please feel free to suggest any 
changes / edits you deem appropriate.

Thanks,

Marika