Re: REMINDER: FW: [gnso-irtpc] For review - IRTP Part C Final Report
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">hi all,<div><br></div><div>here are the latest slides.</div><div><br></div><div>i've added a couple use cases and have some proposed language to address that remaining issue -- what do we do about minor changes to registrant information. i'm concerned that we take the registrants out of the loop with the current language and leave the decision as to what constitutes a minor change up to the registrars. i would much prefer to have the registrant decide whether this is a minor change and make choices accordingly. so i've added Use Case 6 and Use Case 7 to the slides and would propose the following change to the language in the report.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Current language:<span style="line-height: 150%; "> </span></b></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><a><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%; background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">In the case of minor updates or corrections, the registrar, at its discretion, may waive this requirement.</span></a><span class="MsoCommentReference"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%; background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><!--[if !supportAnnotations]--><a class="msocomanchor" id="_anchor_1" href="#_msocom_1" language="JavaScript" name="_msoanchor_1">[MK1]</a><!--[endif]--> </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 150%; "><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div><!--[if !supportAnnotations]--> <div><div id="_com_1" class="msocomtxt" language="JavaScript"><p class="MsoCommentText"><b>Proposed language:</b><span style="line-height: 22px; "> </span></p></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><div><div class="msocomtxt" language="JavaScript"><div><span style="line-height: 22px; ">In the case of minor updates or corrections, the registrar may waive this requirement at the request of the registrant. However such waivers must be secured in a way that prevents an unauthorized person from requesting the action based exclusively on registrar account credentials or publicly available resources such as Whois. As a non-limiting example, Registrars may want to consider “out of band” authentication based on information that cannot be learned from within the registrar account or publicly available resources such as Whois. The Working Group recommends that the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team is consulted by ICANN staff as it develops the implementation plan to ensure this recommendation is implemented in accordance with the intention of the Working Group.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><div><div class="msocomtxt" language="JavaScript"><div><br></div><div>here's the wording from the new Use Cases. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Use Case 6 -- Minor Change to Registrant Information</b></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><div><div class="msocomtxt" language="JavaScript"><div><div style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal; ">Nathalie (a recently married blogger) wants to update her Registrant information to her married name. Because she has no plans to transfer her domain and wants to protectit from hijacking, she declines the opportunity to waive the lock when it’s presented by her registrar. Note: technically this is identical to Use Case 2</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><div><div class="msocomtxt" language="JavaScript"><div><br></div> <!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div> <!--[endif]--></div> </div> <!--EndFragment--><div><div><b>Use Case 7 -- Minor Change to Registrant Information, waiving the post-change lock</b></div><div><br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><div><div style="margin-top: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal; ">Nettie (an unhappy registrar customer) wants to make a minor change to her registrant information. She is willing to waive the safeguard in order to have the option to quickly transfer to a new registrar. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><div><br></div><div>there's another use case where Nettie is so unhappy that she does the minor change to Registrant information AND changes registrar all at the same time, but that's identical to Use Case 5 -- Change Registrant and Registrar and waive the safeguard. i decided a profusion of use-cases is probably confusing so i left it out, but it would be easy to add it to the deck if people think it's needed.</div><div><br></div><div>that concludes my report. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>mikey</div><div><br></div><div></div></div></div></body></html> Attachment:
IRTP-C - pictures 10.pptx <html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div></div><div><br></div><div>On Sep 29, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx";>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>REMINDER</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11pt; text-align: left; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); "><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Marika Konings <<a href="mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx";>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday 26 September 2012 11:38<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx";>gnso-irtpc@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> [gnso-irtpc] For review - IRTP Part C Final Report<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Dear All,</div><div><br></div><div>As discussed during yesterday's meeting, please find attached an updated draft of the Final Report. To facilitate review, I've accepted all the changes of the previous version. The main changes in this version are:</div><ul><li>Updated recommendation, steps and notes for charter question A as discussed during yesterday's meeting</li><li>Highlighted the one remaining issue in relation to charter question A that needs further discussion (whether or not an exception process should be foreseen to allow a registrar to waive the change of registrant policy in case of minor changes / corrections)</li><li>Included the agreed upon language for the recommendation for Charter Question B, including the edits proposed by Rob Golding (see email to the mailing list earlier today)</li><li>Updated consensus statements for each recommendation (subject to change)</li><li>Moved language on change of registrant policy as a hybrid policy to the deliberation part of section 5, instead of making it part of the recommendation itself. In the recommendation for Charter Question A, an additional note has been included to reflect the WG position on this issue.</li><li>Added an additional recommendation, #4, to section 7 on the proposed IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team</li><li>Updated section 7 and the executive summary (subject to change pending finalisation of report)</li></ul><div><b><u>You are strongly encouraged to review this latest version of the report and raise any substantive issues / comments with the mailing list prior to the next meeting on 2 October.</u></b></div><div><b><u><br></u></b></div><div>Mikey, if you can send me the latest version of the flow charts in relation to charter question A, I will include these as an annex to the report.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Marika</div></div></div></span></div> <span><IRTP Part C Final Report - draft - 26 September 2012.doc></span></blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px; "><div style="font-size: 12px; ">- - - - - - - - -</div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">phone <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>651-647-6109 </div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">fax <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>866-280-2356 </div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">web <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span><a href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a></div><div style="font-size: 12px; ">handle<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre; "> </span>OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</div></span> </div> <br></div></body></html>
|