Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Dear All, Attached is the Issues Report requested by the Council at its meeting on 20 September (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20sep07.shtml), covering a limited set of clarifications to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: "ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (see http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23aug07.pdf)." I am happy to answer any questions on the report. Best regards, Karen - Karen Lentz gTLD Registry Liaison, ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, No. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz@icann.org
Why does the issues paper on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy only focus on four issues discussed in the WG report? If we are going to improve the policy, is there any reason why we shouldn't attempt to address all of the issues identified in the WG report? I suppose that it could be easier to deal with four very specific issues in one PDP and then initiate another PDP for the remaining issues. It might be useful to have the planning group focus on this. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Lentz Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:16 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Dear All,
Attached is the Issues Report requested by the Council at its meeting on 20 September (http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-20sep07.shtml), covering a limited set of clarifications to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy:
"ii) Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the creation of an issues report evaluating issues raised by the working group document "Points of Clarification Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (see http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Denial-Clarifications-23 aug07.pdf)."
I am happy to answer any questions on the report.
Best regards,
Karen
-
Karen Lentz gTLD Registry Liaison, ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, No. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz@icann.org
On 23-Oct-07, at 11:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I suppose that it could be easier to deal with four very specific issues in one PDP and then initiate another PDP for the remaining issues. It might be useful to have the planning group focus on this.
The working group recommended, and Council approved, that the work proceed as a series of scope-limited PDPs, where appropriate, to ensure that constant improvement was made possible and within the timelines of the PDP specified in the bylaws. The prioritization committee will set out to establish a calendar of specific topics that can be picked up by work under the PDP. Although it isn't explicit in our mandate, I had always assumed that if other transfers related PDP work needed to be prioritized, that the committee could take care of this as well. So, I would expect a series of short, snappy policy development exercises on this topic instead of one big monolithic one that tries to address all of the issues in one fell swoop. We have seen that the latter approach doesn't seem to work particularly well (i.e. Whois) whereas the former has worked quite well. I hope this helps clarify. Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com "To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Thanks Ross. That is helpful. And I fully support your suggestion to have the planning committee prioritize other Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP issues. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:58 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Karen Lentz; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
On 23-Oct-07, at 11:42 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I suppose that it could be easier to deal with four very specific issues in one PDP and then initiate another PDP for the remaining issues. It might be useful to have the planning group focus on this.
The working group recommended, and Council approved, that the work proceed as a series of scope-limited PDPs, where appropriate, to ensure that constant improvement was made possible and within the timelines of the PDP specified in the bylaws. The prioritization committee will set out to establish a calendar of specific topics that can be picked up by work under the PDP. Although it isn't explicit in our mandate, I had always assumed that if other transfers related PDP work needed to be prioritized, that the committee could take care of this as well.
So, I would expect a series of short, snappy policy development exercises on this topic instead of one big monolithic one that tries to address all of the issues in one fell swoop. We have seen that the latter approach doesn't seem to work particularly well (i.e. Whois) whereas the former has worked quite well.
I hope this helps clarify.
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by- laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report:
6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff’s perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.
2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by- laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http:// www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/ raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Hi,
This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007.
Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions:
1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report:
6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff’s perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.
2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose.
In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by- laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting.
thanks
a.
Appreciate it, Avri. My flight leaves at 4 PST so I'll be on remotely as long as possible. My schedule on Saturday would permit working longer, but I defer to the consensus of the group, especially if I'm the only one attending the meeting who will have left by Thursday afternoon. Not to make it more complicated, but when would we take public comment or have public discussion? On Saturday? During the Wednesday meeting? Are we creating difficulties for ourselves w/r/t the community if we use an open discussion/vote format for everything else on Wednesday except this issue? What is everyone else's preference? ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http://www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
There are at least two avenues that are available for comments in the GNSO: 1) via ICANN organizations (GNSO constituencies, ALAC, GAC) and NomCom representatives, all of which are represented on the Council; 2) public forums that we hold at ICANN regional meetings. The latter avenue is an exception and not general practice. The former is the normal avenue for input and one that should work particularly well for this meeting because Constituency day as well as meetings by other groups will preceed our meeting on the 31st. That would seem to me to allow for significant input for anything we act on the 31st or 1st providing that each of us as representatives ensure that we discuss issues with our respective constituencies, etc. on Tuesday or sooner. The fact that we have working sessions on the weekend should provide us even more information that we can share with our constituencies and others on Tuesday and thereby faciliate seeking their input. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:03 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Appreciate it, Avri. My flight leaves at 4 PST so I'll be on remotely as long as possible. My schedule on Saturday would permit working longer, but I defer to the consensus of the group, especially if I'm the only one attending the meeting who will have left by Thursday afternoon. Not to make it more complicated, but when would we take public comment or have public discussion? On Saturday? During the Wednesday meeting? Are we creating difficulties for ourselves w/r/t the community if we use an open discussion/vote format for everything else on Wednesday except this issue? What is everyone else's preference? ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http://www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
I'd like to add some support for Kristina, as I will also leave LA on Thursday. Tony ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: 24 October 2007 19:44 To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues There are at least two avenues that are available for comments in the GNSO: 1) via ICANN organizations (GNSO constituencies, ALAC, GAC) and NomCom representatives, all of which are represented on the Council; 2) public forums that we hold at ICANN regional meetings. The latter avenue is an exception and not general practice. The former is the normal avenue for input and one that should work particularly well for this meeting because Constituency day as well as meetings by other groups will preceed our meeting on the 31st. That would seem to me to allow for significant input for anything we act on the 31st or 1st providing that each of us as representatives ensure that we discuss issues with our respective constituencies, etc. on Tuesday or sooner. The fact that we have working sessions on the weekend should provide us even more information that we can share with our constituencies and others on Tuesday and thereby faciliate seeking their input. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 2:03 PM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Appreciate it, Avri. My flight leaves at 4 PST so I'll be on remotely as long as possible. My schedule on Saturday would permit working longer, but I defer to the consensus of the group, especially if I'm the only one attending the meeting who will have left by Thursday afternoon. Not to make it more complicated, but when would we take public comment or have public discussion? On Saturday? During the Wednesday meeting? Are we creating difficulties for ourselves w/r/t the community if we use an open discussion/vote format for everything else on Wednesday except this issue? What is everyone else's preference? ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http://www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
hi, I understand. Thanks for letting us know. Will you be able to particpate in Thursday's meeing remotely? I think, voting aside, it is important to have as many council members as possible on hand to discuss community comments received during the meeting. As for the PDP vote on Inter-registrar transfer (IRT), as you probably noticed I have scheduled a discusion on Saturday for this. If we get far enough in the discusion and have time on Wednesday durin the public meeting, we can vote on it then. Otherwise we can vote on postponing the vote until our next scheduled tele-meeting. thanks a. On 25 okt 2007, at 10.28, <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> wrote:
I'd like to add some support for Kristina, as I will also leave LA on Thursday.
Tony
Avri Sorry I won't be able to participate remotely as I'll be travelling, but thanks for trying to change things around. Its always difficult to try and best guess arrangements when making travel plans for ICANN. Tony ________________________________ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: 26 October 2007 14:33 To: Holmes,AR,Tony,DDM R Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues hi, I understand. Thanks for letting us know. Will you be able to particpate in Thursday's meeing remotely? I think, voting aside, it is important to have as many council members as possible on hand to discuss community comments received during the meeting. As for the PDP vote on Inter-registrar transfer (IRT), as you probably noticed I have scheduled a discusion on Saturday for this. If we get far enough in the discusion and have time on Wednesday durin the public meeting, we can vote on it then. Otherwise we can vote on postponing the vote until our next scheduled tele-meeting. thanks a. On 25 okt 2007, at 10.28, <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com> wrote: I'd like to add some support for Kristina, as I will also leave LA on Thursday. Tony
On 24 okt 2007, at 14.02, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Not to make it more complicated, but when would we take public comment or have public discussion? On Saturday? During the Wednesday meeting?
While there is no requirement on taking public comment before voting on starting a PDP, which is what we are talking about here, I prefer to allow for comment whenever possible. In this case, we have the luxury of extensive public comment on a multiplicity of RAA issues that we can add to whatever comment Council members can collect from their constituencies. Should any of the other topics go shorter on the Wednesday open meeting, I will definitely open up the floor for comments on this topic. It is just that we already have a crowded schedule, so I am not confident that we can fit it in. It should be noted that if we decide to move the vote to our first teleconference after the LA meeting, we will not do a public comment period first. That comes later in the process, whatever option we take on the process.
Are we creating difficulties for ourselves w/r/t the community if we use an open discussion/vote format for everything else on Wednesday except this issue?
The format on Wednesday is experimental. I am expecting comments later on whether the experiment works and whether it should be repeated or altered. We really have 3 different types of issue being covered in this meeting: 2 issues, IGO and Domain Tasting, where we taking comment before initiating a PDP. This is not required, but I am curious to see how this goes. Given that both of these are somewhat controversial as to whether a PDP is even appropriate, I think the public comment may be very helpful. 1 Issue, IDN ccTLDs where we have a GNSO repsonse to a Board request that we have not yet received any public comment on. This is not a PDP and there is no established process for this, but it would certainly be valuable to get some open discussion going. I am not sure whether this is ready to come to a vote yet, but others think it is time. So this is among the things we need to discuss. 1 Issue, whois, that has had 7 years of work, sweat and tears, has had multiple comment periods and is still as raw as it ever was. It is sort of inconceivable that we could take our multiple votes on this one without one more set of face to face public comments. While I think it would be good to get some face to face comments before voting on the Inter-Registrar transfer policy PDP, I don't think it is critical as so much has been said before and I have not picked up a great deal of controversy yet on whether this PDP should be done or not. There certainly is not anything like the controversy involved in either the IGO or the Domain Tasting PDP decisions. Thanks a.
I am okay with extending the time on Saturday if needed but I would suggest that we may not need a full hour. I don't think there is much if any controversy on this issue. I would be surprised if we even needed 30 minutes. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http://www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
Hi, You are probably right, but while we are extending things, we might as well make sure we allow enough time for any comments that may come up, especially from observers at the meeting. And if we finish a half hour early, I am sure none of us will complain. thanks a. On 24 okt 2007, at 14.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am okay with extending the time on Saturday if needed but I would suggest that we may not need a full hour. I don't think there is much if any controversy on this issue. I would be surprised if we even needed 30 minutes.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Hi,
Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way.
Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely?
I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter- Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion.
So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place.
BTW, as additional background, people should check out http:// www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/ raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper.
thanks
a.
On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Hi,
This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007.
Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions:
1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report:
6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff’s perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.
2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose.
In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by- laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting.
thanks
a.
hi, No one has objected to running a hour later on Saturday so we can talk about the Inter-Registrar Transfer Issues paper and the possibility of intiating a PDP. So, please add to your schedules: 1800-1900 - Inter-registrar Transfer Issues. Karen, can you give us an overview of the Issues paper at that time? Thanks a. On 24 okt 2007, at 15.25, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
You are probably right, but while we are extending things, we might as well make sure we allow enough time for any comments that may come up, especially from observers at the meeting.
And if we finish a half hour early, I am sure none of us will complain.
thanks
a.
On 24 okt 2007, at 14.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I am okay with extending the time on Saturday if needed but I would suggest that we may not need a full hour. I don't think there is much if any controversy on this issue. I would be surprised if we even needed 30 minutes.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Hi,
Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way.
Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely?
I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter- Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion.
So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place.
BTW, as additional background, people should check out http:// www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/ topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper.
thanks
a.
On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
Hi,
This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007.
Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions:
1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report:
6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff’s perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.
2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose.
In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting.
thanks
a.
Avri, Yes -- I will plan to be in the meeting at that time for the discussion of the Issues paper. Best regards, Karen _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@psg.com] Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:03 AM To: Council GNSO; Karen Lentz Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues hi, No one has objected to running a hour later on Saturday so we can talk about the Inter-Registrar Transfer Issues paper and the possibility of intiating a PDP. So, please add to your schedules: 1800-1900 - Inter-registrar Transfer Issues. Karen, can you give us an overview of the Issues paper at that time? Thanks a. On 24 okt 2007, at 15.25, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, You are probably right, but while we are extending things, we might as well make sure we allow enough time for any comments that may come up, especially from observers at the meeting. And if we finish a half hour early, I am sure none of us will complain. thanks a. On 24 okt 2007, at 14.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: I am okay with extending the time on Saturday if needed but I would suggest that we may not need a full hour. I don't think there is much if any controversy on this issue. I would be surprised if we even needed 30 minutes. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:52 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, Kristina, I am sorry to hear you won't be with us on Thursday as the conversations about comments received during the meeting will be as important as any vote we take and it would have been good to have your contributions to these discussions. Though I understand that real life, families, and day jobs often get in the way. Would it be possible for you to attend this meeting, (17-20 EST), remotely? I will try to find a way to fit this discussion on the Inter-Rgistrar transfer policy into one of our earlier meetings, but am not sure where. One idea is to extend the day on Saturday by an hour - not to vote, but to have the initial substantive discussion. So, would be people be willing to work an extra hour later on Saturday, i.e. until 19 instead of 18, so that we can have the initial discussion? This might allow us to hold the vote on Wednesday because most of the discussion could have taken place. BTW, as additional background, people should check out http://www.icann.org/topics/raa and especially http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-public-comments-23oct07.pdf in addition to the materials that have been develped by the WG and the Issues paper. thanks a. On 23 okt 2007, at 16.26, Rosette, Kristina wrote: I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday. I will be traveling back to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our only voting meeting. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues Hi, This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3 Nov 2007. Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on, or moving to a later meeting. We do have a meeting scheduled for Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from the meetings. I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP process; i.e. to vote on two motions: 1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on page 22 of the issues report: 6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are within the scope of the policy development process and the GNSO. It is reasonable from the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision and certainty around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy would be beneficial to the community generally, particularly for registrants, as well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars) who are obligated to comply with the policy provisions. Staff therefore recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report. 2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose. In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part of the Thursday meeting. If there is strong objection, then I believe we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday meeting. thanks a.
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Karen Lentz -
Rosette, Kristina -
Ross Rader -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com