Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update

[Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Lars

That does reflect the discussions we have had

Holly
On 10/02/2014, at 7:45 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:

> Dear Holly, dear all,
> 
> Thank you for pointing this out. Would it work for you/the Group if we 
> included the following paragraph into Section 5.2.4.3 (Recommendation Charter 
> Question D):
> 
> In combination with the improvements to the ICANN website, the Working Group 
> recommends that ICANN Compliance clearly indicates on its FAQ/help section 
> under which circumstances it can assist registrants with transfer disputes. 
> This should include situations when registrants can ask ICANN Compliance to 
> insist on registrars taking action on behalf of said registrant because ICANN 
> policies may not have been complied with by one or several registrars.  
> 
> In addition, the draft agenda for today's call below.
> Best wishes, Lars
> 
> 
> Draft Agenda: IRTP Part D PDP WG, Monday 10 February 2013, 16.00 UTC
> 
> 1. Roll Call / SOI Updates
> 
> 2. Discussion on Draft Initial Report
> - Recommendations on p. 22 onwards
> 
> 3. If time: First read through the Use Cases (Annex C)
> 
> 4. Next steps / confirm next meeting 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:25 PM
> To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] Initial Report Update
> 
> Hi Lars
> 
> I think we went further on the registrants' issue.  Apart from an improved 
> ICANN website with full information, we suggested that registrants should be 
> able to go to compliance to have them insist the relevant registrar take 
> action on behalf of the registrant when an ICANN policy/requirement has not 
> been complied with - and this possibility of action by compliance be included 
> in the FAQ/website
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Holly
> 
> 
> On 07/02/2014, at 2:42 AM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> Please find attached an updated version of the Initial Report.
>> I have accepted all changes made by Mikey in last week's draft since there 
>> were no objections to them on the call. I have then focused the edits on  
>> changes to WG Observations and Recommendations – based on the outcome of 
>> Monday's call. I have not yet combined the sections of Issue Description and 
>> WG Observations that was suggested by the Group but it is on the list for 
>> the next update.
>> Best wishes,
>> Lars
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> <GNSO Initial Report V2.docx>
>