Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
hi Marika, sorry this reply took so long. i've gotten overloaded and am working to get that fixed. meanwhile, response-time has slowed. i completely support your thoughts, and (since they're overloaded too) i'll add that i bet James and Michele would be OK with this approach as well. a key component of all this is figuring out how IRTP-C is going to be implemented. that would have the added benefit of providing more clarity to the IRTP-D efforts around the Registrant's access to the TDRP. so. i'm willing to help figure this out. but i'm not clear how we're organized. do we have a project leader? is there a charter that describes the work that needs to be done, who's going to do what, by when, etc? where can i help during the course of that work? it would definitely be nice to have a plan in place by Singapore, since we're also trying to have an IRTP-D draft done by then and the IRTP-C implementation approach informs the IRTP-D work. mikey On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:23 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi All, > > As I've said before, I think we need to distinguish between implementation > effective date and the development of the implementation plan. If I've > understood James and Michele correctly, I think they are referring to the > implementation effective date when they are talking about 'pausing' and > considering rolling out changes at fixed points in the year. However, before > being able to talk about pausing or when sometimes becomes in effect, I think > we first need an actual implementation plan. As there were quite a number of > issues that needed to be worked out in relation to IRTP Part C as part of the > implementation discussions, I think there is still plenty to do before we > even get to the stage of considering when this could/would become into > effect. Also, by the time we have worked through those items it may become > more clear whether or not any of the proposed recommendations of IRTP Part D > need to be tied into the implementation effective date of IRTP Part C. > Presumably having an actual implementation plan would also allow for more > effective planning by contracted parties, even if the implementation > effective date is for example a year out, as they can already anticipate what > needs to happen in order for them to be ready by that date. As the IRTP Part > C recommendations were adopted by the Board about a year ago, wouldn't it be > nice if we could share a proposed implementation plan with the community by > Singapore (even if it means that the actual changes wouldn't come into effect > until later)? > > Best regards, > > Marika > > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wednesday 11 December 2013 00:16 > To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Cole > <Tim.Cole@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification > > hi Caitlin. > > what?? you don't follow what we're saying? humph. *I* don't follow what > we're saying half the time. ;-) > > it would probably do us all some good to quickly schedule an IRTP C IRT call > to work through the implications of all this. > > -- the IRTP-D conversations have been inconsistent about the scope of the > delay to IRTP-C implementation. sometimes we say "all of it" sometimes we > say "some of it" and when we say "some" we change which bits we're talking > about. i'm glad to see that you're grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and > saying "wait. what??" > > -- i'm not sure whether we need to pause *all* of C or just parts of it. > that requires more thought -- maybe drag Marika into that thought process? > > -- we *have* uncovered a problem with the IRTP-C recommendation during > IRTP-D. in C, we created this whole new kind of transfer category -- the > inter REGISTRANT transfer. we wrote a lot about that process, but then > punted on the dispute-resolution part of that and said "sure, TDRP can handle > that." turns out that's more complicated than we thought and we're just > wading through that discussion right now in D. it would be good to > coordinate what we do in D with what's being done in the implementation of C. > > -- i'm starting to rethink the face to face meeting idea. i'd like to ponder > than some more -- but the ICANN level of activity just went off the scale > with all this Brazil stuff (on top of all the other stuff). we might want to > schedule a few *long* teleconference meetings rather than face-to-face > meetings and see where that takes us. a lot cheaper and a lot less > disruptive of schedules and lives. > > just a few random thoughts. i don't see how you people with day jobs get > through all this ICANN stuff. it's pretty heavy-duty right now. > > thanks for your note. let's bat this around a little more and see where we > land. > > mikey > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, >> >> I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early >> Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood >> the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the >> transcript for ease of reference. >> >> On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation >> efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D >> discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation >> efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a >> face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. >> I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should >> still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. >> >> Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should >> allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey >> asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included >> a few points below to consider: >> >> Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the >> new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the >> pipeline including but not limited to: >> >> the 2013 RAA; >> >> the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); >> >> IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and >> >> IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 >> >> To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an >> implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles >> more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate >> into their business models. >> >> Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with >> recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team >> is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may >> also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C >> Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working >> Group. >> >> Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please >> let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for >> January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball >> rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of >> the group. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Caitlin Tubergen >> Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager >> ICANN >> >> >> <transcript-irtp-d-20nov13-en[2][2][1].pdf> > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: > OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|