- IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary
Dear WG Members, Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week¹s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made. In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
Thanks, Steve. I just want to note that the IRTP example relies heavily on registrar reporting. Not being a registrar, I don't know how much of this information is actually currently tracked or will be tracked under the new IRTP. That would be helpful context and I'd certainly look to those closer to the registrar end of things to provide an assessment what fulfillment of such a request would entail. As far as Registry concerns, we outsource most of our technical and database requirements, as most new TLD registries do. I am not aware that our use of any reporting function comes at a higher cost but that could be a concern for some folks. I don't think there is anything to be done with this on either side but am merely brainstorming how fulfillment of such a request would work.. Thanks A On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week’s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made.
In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg
-- Andrew Merriam Business Development Coordinator Top Level Design, LLC tldesign.co 505.238.9166 @AndMerriam skype: andrewpmerriam
Hi Andrew, Thank you for the response. As for your first point, you are correct in that this use case request relies more on Registrars. However, it does include a hint of data from Registries, albeit data this is contractually required to be sent to ICANN on a monthly basis and ultimately publicly available. While the WG is focusing on the IRTP use case because it is the most tangible “real world” example, the WG should also still consider the other draft use cases such as the third one where perhaps the “Subsequent Round WG” or PDPs that may flow out of its efforts might be more Registry specific. In terms of your second point, I think the same principles may apply where some data requested may not be a contractual obligation and if Registries were to accept such a request, a determination in how it might be paid for and subsequently aggregated would be similar to Registrar concerns. If the WG does consider distributing the IRTP use case across the SGs/Cs, I think the input we receive will better inform our other use cases as well. I hope this helps. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Merriam Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 15:13 To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary Thanks, Steve. I just want to note that the IRTP example relies heavily on registrar reporting. Not being a registrar, I don't know how much of this information is actually currently tracked or will be tracked under the new IRTP. That would be helpful context and I'd certainly look to those closer to the registrar end of things to provide an assessment what fulfillment of such a request would entail. As far as Registry concerns, we outsource most of our technical and database requirements, as most new TLD registries do. I am not aware that our use of any reporting function comes at a higher cost but that could be a concern for some folks. I don't think there is anything to be done with this on either side but am merely brainstorming how fulfillment of such a request would work.. Thanks A On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week’s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made. In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886 <tel:%2B1.310.301.3886> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <tel:%2B1.310.339.4410> tel: +1.310.301.5800 <tel:%2B1.310.301.5800> fax: +1.310.823.8649 <tel:%2B1.310.823.8649> _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg -- Andrew Merriam Business Development Coordinator Top Level Design, LLC tldesign.co 505.238.9166 @AndMerriam skype: andrewpmerriam
All, For ease of reference, I have made some comments in the draft Steve circulated. My sense is that registrars would be reluctant to provide IRTP related data due to commercial sensitivity. However, a lot of data and insights can be gained from registries’ monthly reports and ICANN Compliance complaints intake system (which has undergone a number of iterations in recent years with more data mining and reporting capabilities). Some registries also have the capability and willingness to write additional codes to generate specifically requested data (out of their registrations systems). Considering the uneven distribution of registrations and transfers among the gTLDs today, this is important to keep in mind. FYI - When I was with ICANN Compliance, I designed and conducted the first and the only IRTP Audit (see https://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/irtp-audit-report-13dec10-en.pdf). Kind regards, Pam From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:04 PM To: 'Andrew Merriam'; 'Steve Chan' Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary Hi Andrew, Thank you for the response. As for your first point, you are correct in that this use case request relies more on Registrars. However, it does include a hint of data from Registries, albeit data this is contractually required to be sent to ICANN on a monthly basis and ultimately publicly available. While the WG is focusing on the IRTP use case because it is the most tangible “real world” example, the WG should also still consider the other draft use cases such as the third one where perhaps the “Subsequent Round WG” or PDPs that may flow out of its efforts might be more Registry specific. In terms of your second point, I think the same principles may apply where some data requested may not be a contractual obligation and if Registries were to accept such a request, a determination in how it might be paid for and subsequently aggregated would be similar to Registrar concerns. If the WG does consider distributing the IRTP use case across the SGs/Cs, I think the input we receive will better inform our other use cases as well. I hope this helps. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-dmpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Merriam Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 15:13 To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-dmpm-wg] - IRTP Review Use Case With Executive Summary Thanks, Steve. I just want to note that the IRTP example relies heavily on registrar reporting. Not being a registrar, I don't know how much of this information is actually currently tracked or will be tracked under the new IRTP. That would be helpful context and I'd certainly look to those closer to the registrar end of things to provide an assessment what fulfillment of such a request would entail. As far as Registry concerns, we outsource most of our technical and database requirements, as most new TLD registries do. I am not aware that our use of any reporting function comes at a higher cost but that could be a concern for some folks. I don't think there is anything to be done with this on either side but am merely brainstorming how fulfillment of such a request would work.. Thanks A On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week’s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made. In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886 <tel:%2B1.310.301.3886> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <tel:%2B1.310.339.4410> tel: +1.310.301.5800 <tel:%2B1.310.301.5800> fax: +1.310.823.8649 <tel:%2B1.310.823.8649> _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg -- Andrew Merriam Business Development Coordinator Top Level Design, LLC tldesign.co 505.238.9166 @AndMerriam skype: andrewpmerriam
Some observations as an individual registrar. We track incoming transfers and outgoing transfers but i would not be able to use those numbers to come up with a percentage that would indicate that an IRTP PDP is succesfull or not. If i would look at support requests where our resellers would ask why a transfer has not been executed (in or out transfers), i would then be able to come up with significant number that would show a drastic drop in those support requests and could contribute it to IRTP-B. Also to keep in mind, that if you would look at IRTP that it is very possible that the RAA 2013 with it's verification and validation might distort the statistics. Just a few observations from my side. Best regards, Theo Geurts Realtime Register B.V. Ceintuurbaan 32A 8024 AA - ZWOLLE - The Netherlands T: +31.384530759 F: +31.384524734 U: www.realtimeregister.com E: support@realtimeregister.com Andrew Merriam schreef op 2014-11-12 23:13:
Thanks, Steve. I just want to note that the IRTP example relies heavily on registrar reporting. Not being a registrar, I don't know how much of this information is actually currently tracked or will be tracked under the new IRTP. That would be helpful context and I'd certainly look to those closer to the registrar end of things to provide an assessment what fulfillment of such a request would entail.
As far as Registry concerns, we outsource most of our technical and database requirements, as most new TLD registries do. I am not aware that our use of any reporting function comes at a higher cost but that could be a concern for some folks. I don't think there is anything to be done with this on either side but am merely brainstorming how fulfillment of such a request would work..
Thanks
A
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Staff has prepared a draft executive summary that has been attached to the IRTP use case discussed in last week’s call. As a reminder, the WG will be meeting next week on 18 November at 21:00 UTC and I would like to strongly urge discussion on the email list regarding this draft in advance of that meeting to ensure that progress is made.
In addition, as the scope of data/metrics requests for policy making extends beyond just the registries and registrars (including this IRTP Review use case), the WG may want to consider distributing this use case more broadly, perhaps to all stakeholder groups and constituencies. I would encourage discussion on this point as well.
Best,
STEVEN CHAN Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 [1] mobile: +1.310.339.4410 [2]
tel: +1.310.301.5800 [3]
fax: +1.310.823.8649 [4] _______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg [5]
--
Andrew Merriam Business Development Coordinator
Top Level Design, LLC tldesign.co [6]
505.238.9166 @AndMerriam skype: andrewpmerriam
Links: ------ [1] tel:%2B1.310.301.3886 [2] tel:%2B1.310.339.4410 [3] tel:%2B1.310.301.5800 [4] tel:%2B1.310.823.8649 [5] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg [6] http://tldesign.co
_______________________________________________ Gnso-dmpm-wg mailing list Gnso-dmpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-dmpm-wg
participants (5)
-
Andrew Merriam -
Berry Cobb -
gtheo -
Pam Little -
Steve Chan