Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
works for me. is this project part of Amy Blivins’ portfolio? you might want to add her to the gang. m On Jan 6, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi All, > > Happy New Year! I hope everyone is well rested and ready to dive back into > IRTP-C. (Ha!) > > There seems to still be some lingering confusion in regards to IRTP C > implementation. I will fully admit that I am one of the confused parties. > In the spirit of moving things along, I scheduled a call this week so that we > can decide how we would like to move this forward. We do not currently have > a "who will do what, by when" type of implementation plan, but I would like > to start working that out with all of you. Given many of your extensive > expertise in other WGs and IRTs as well as your knowledge of how the > discussions in IRTP-D color our efforts in IRTP-C, I would appreciate your > help in putting this plan together. > > Please see the call-in details below: > > Thursday, 9 January at 17:00 UTC. > > Adigo code: 28462745 > > Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ > Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/raaeducation/ > > If you have any suggestions for anything you would like addressed during the > call, please let me know. > > Kind regards, > > Caitlin Tubergen > Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager > ICANN > > > From: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sunday, December 15, 2013 5:19 AM > To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@xxxxxxxxx>, > "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 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.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|