ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-irtpd]


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

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

  • To: "Knight, Barbara" <BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review
  • From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:11:07 +0000

Dear Barbara, all,

I just wanted to confirm whether you are referring to a formal minority view
as outlined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. If so, these are normally
included as part of the Final Report and as such would need to be included
before the report is published (which was foreseen for today). It is
unfortunate of course that this comes so late into the process, but at the
same time, it is probably worth for the WG to consider how to deal with this
issue as a formal minority statement on the statue of limitations could also
trigger requests from others such as ALAC and Thomas Rickert to include a
similar minority statement on extending the statue of limitations to 15
months. Of course, if you are not referring to a formal minority statement
but comments that some RySG members may make as part of the Council
deliberations or public comment forum prior to Board consideration, then
there may not be any need for further WG consideration.

Regardless, one possible way to address the concern might be to consider an
amendment to 4.2.7.1 (p.35) of the Final Report. This is the section, in
which the proposed issues for a future review of the IRTP are listed. Maybe
an additional bullet point might address the RySG concerns and assure that
future changes to (or reversals of) policy regarding the statute of
limitations are based on relevant data points:
* The period of time between the occurrence of an alleged non-compliant
transfer and the launch of an IRTP process ­ including those incidents where
there no IRTP was launched due to the expiration of the statute of
limitations.
Maybe this would address some of the concerns raised?
Best wishes,
Lars



 

From:  <Knight>, Barbara Knight <BKnight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Monday, 22 September 2014 05:17
To:  James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Diaz <pdiaz@xxxxxxx>
Cc:  Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx"
<gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review

James,
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
bknight@xxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

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. ;)

 

Thanks-

 

J. 



Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.

 


On Sep 19, 2014, at 17:48, "Paul Diaz" <pdiaz@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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 edit.
> 
>  
> 
> 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> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks, Barbara.
> 
>  
> 
> I¹m curious:  What would be involved if the RySG does not ³fully support² a
> recommendation, due to a single member¹s disagreement?  How would this be
> reflected in our report?   Does the RySG only support (and vote on council) if
> their membership is unanimous?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks‹
> 
>  
> 
> J.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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> >,
> "gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx> " <gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx> >
> Subject: [gnso-irtpd] RE: For your (final?) review
> 
>  
> 
> Lars,
> 
> 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 - ³As a guidance to future policy development processes,
> this Working Group recommends that policy specific sanctions be avoided
> wherever possible.²  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 ­ ³The WG recommends that the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP be
> extended from current 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer.²  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
> bknight@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bknight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> m: 703-622-1071 t: 703-948-3343
> 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
> 
> VerisignInc.com <http://www.verisigninc.com/>
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-irtpd@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 Groups¹ 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 Monday¹s call. Many thanks and have a
> good weekend!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Lars
> 
>  
> 
> 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
>  


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy