ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review

  • To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review
  • From: "Knight, Barbara" <BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 03:17:24 +0000

As per my previous email, there has been some discussion within the RySG 
relating to recommendations #5 and #15.  In my previous communication, I 
provided a summary of the discussion relating to recommendation #15.  With 
regard to #5, which calls for extending the statute of limitations for filing a 
dispute from 6 months to 12, the discussion surrounded the goal of the 
recommendation in striking a balance between registrant protections and legal 
certainty.  The question was raised as to whether extending the statute would 
enhance registrant protection.  It was pointed out that if this is, indeed, the 
goal, it should be supported by data.  As we have discussed on previous WG 
calls, having supporting data has long been a hot topic so I can understand 
this concern amongst the RySG.

Those individuals who have expressed concerns may opt, at a future point in 
time, to submit a minority statement expressing their concerns.  However, at 
this time, the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D final report.  Thanks.

Barbara Knight
Director of Registry Compliance

m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190


From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:49 PM
To: Paul Diaz
Cc: Knight, Barbara; Lars Hoffmann; gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review

Thanks Paul.

We still have the option of lowering our consensus level from "Full 
Consensus/Unanimous" to "Consensus," but will wait to hear back from Barbara.

And to the Chair of IRTP-A:  it's been a long and interesting road, but we are 
finally nearing the end. ;)



Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.

On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx<mailto:pdiaz@xxxxxxx>> 
Hi James,

The RySG does not require unanimity to express its support. Rather than say 
"RySG does not fully support," the WG might consider noting that there was some 
concern about specific recommendations, but no outright opposition (assuming 
the conditions below).

As Barbara noted, she's interacting with the few Registry reps that have raised 
concerns. IMO, Rec #15 would require a lot more effort than anyone is prepared 
to undertake at this time. Since IRTP-D merely recommends "avoiding" policy 
specific sanctions, there's always room for some other WG to take this issue up 
in the future. Barbara, you might want to challenge the person who raised this 
issue if the wording is sufficient (i.e. flexible for the future) or offer some 

Rec #5 is still under discussion; hopefully we'll have clarity by Monday's 
call. Barbara has explained the WG's logic behind the recommendation. Perhaps 
its time to directly ask if any RySG member really opposes the measure, or just 
wishes the status quo remains? Absent outright opposition, I think it's fair to 
say the RySG generally supports the IRTP-D's recommendations.

Unfortunately, I have a pre-existing schedule conflict and won't be able to 
join you on the 22nd, but I wanted to thank and congratulate everyone for 
seeing the IRTP PDPs through to the end. It's hard to believe this all started 
in 2008 ...er, maybe not!

Best, P

On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:31 PM, James M. Bladel 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Thanks, Barbara.

I’m curious:  What would be involved if the RySG does not “fully support” a 
recommendation, due to a single member’s disagreement?  How would this be 
reflected in our report?   Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if 
their membership is unanimous?



From: "Knight, Barbara" <BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 16:28
To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review

Thank you for sending the updated report.  I circulated a previous version of 
the report to the RySG and have received some limited feedback this week.  
Based on the feedback received, there are two recommendations for which the 
RySG is unable to voice full support at this time.  The first is Recommendation 
#15 - “As a guidance to future policy development processes, this Working Group 
recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided wherever possible.”  One 
member of the RySG provided feedback that since there are more sanctions 
available now, that it may make sense for the policy-making effort to link 
specific violations to specific sanctions rather than transfering this 
responsibility to ICANN staff.  The second is Recommendation #5 – “The WG 
recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be extended from 
current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.”  This item is still 
under discussion.  I will let the WG know as soon as possible whether or not 
the concerns raised with regard to this recommendation have been resolved or if 
it will be necessary to note that the RySG is unable to fully support this 
recommendation as well.  Thanks.

Barbara Knight
Director of Registry Compliance

m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190


From: owner-gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:21 PM
To: gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-irtpd] For your (final?) review

Dear all,

Please find attached the Final Report including the Executive Summary. There 
are very few changes (all redlined) to the version I sent out on Tuesday and to 
which no comments/changes/amendments were submitted.

To clarify the Groups’ Recommendation two small amendments are suggested 
(redlined) to the explanations of Recommendations #1 and #18.

If you have any comments/suggested edits, please submit these asap.

Please also find below the agenda for Monday’s call. Many thanks and have a 
good weekend!
Best wishes,

Draft Agenda – IRTP Part D Working Group Meeting - 22 September 2014

1. Roll Call/SOI Update
2. Reviewing final changes
3. Agreeing on consensus level
4. Review next steps and – if necessary – confirm next meeting

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy