Interesting. I agree that the PDP did not contemplate this particular case. But it is less than clear what the process is to fix it, if indeed a fix is required. I don't think the letter is entirely accurate, as it describes only the case of a P/P provider that is the Registrar itself. They may be the case in a large percentage of such registrations, but is not the only case. In fact, another of the IRTP PDPs spent a LOT of time focusing on cases where the P/P provider is unrelated to the registrar. I am going to reach out to James on this and will get back. I note that the letter refers to an attached Appendix A which outlines four use cases. The Appendix is not attached to the letter as posted by ICANN. Alan At 03/12/2016 05:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear ALAC,
The Board has received the following correspondence from the GNSO Council regarding IRTP Part C:
Please consider whether you wish to provide comment or advice to the Board and/or Staff.
Best regards,
Rinalia
-- Rinalia
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;9:kk7h51U5HMSVMcmTmVcTMaOdN8fnC0vveprZt8BIOBcA9tAA31YQmUPWpF8iNHxrgM4dxeqoUumGpQ3DsP31l4VMaQUPELFCTMtkoRQ1qr2nkmgOW3Mnlm85fJUhJUD2nLMV3PV6Ko9PhQ/3vlAVVyC38utwm9kcGSMNXWIBcW5D2vb1Rdc7Q0uHp+W7LBhgtL/gjU29oq1DUmL6StpNO+J6q9Ta4sJZrLynHVSGOWDL08EyoWDAeJNW5roJTur9QRu0d/LYo2HamuujrW2rgyxezJWURzidEvBOujLNC8bwK6OK6dO5cyOI4FzeGc2GPAs07uxiCU7I+L+zSi469UJWlaZByn+kiz+iqzfps0ypsx3r25A/UxJ1G8StXQ/yNn2ZOjX7K/1l6VGmkioOQ+JlFR6saDx7VrHDeJzQICJIkVt6+KEtpc63PXGZs8M4 X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)