I am familiar with the existing process. I’ll quibble a little over your response by saying that the temp spec did not replace the existing process. What it did was create a (supplemental) streamlined approval process for RRA amendments that followed a template (later) agreed to by registries, registrars and ICANN org.
The need for this streamlined process has passed and I believe the correct course of action is to let it expire leaving the rigor of the existing RRA amendment process.
Best,
Marc
Thanks, Marc. As explained by Dan on the call earlier today, there is indeed an existing process for RRA amendments (pre Temp Spec). This process involves approval by ICANN and also requires action by the RrSG for each individual amendment. Absent a recommendation, the process would revert back to the pre Temp Spec one, once the Temporary Specification expires.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
There already is a process for amending Registry Registrar Agreements (RRAs). I don’t see that this language addresses a need or what it is trying to accomplish. Absent a clearly defined need I don’t support this as a new recommendation.
Best,
Marc
Dear EPDP Team,
In relation to the process for amendments to Registry – Registrar agreements, as discussed during today’s EPDP Team meeting, please find hereby the proposed language for inclusion in the implementation section of the report:
New Recommendation:
The EPDP Team recommends that, as part of the implementation, a process for amendments to Registry - Registrar agreements (RRAs) needed to implement the EPDP recommendations is considered.
If you have any concerns about this language, please indicate this by Thursday 7 February COB.
Best regards,
Caitlin, Berry and Marika
Marika Konings
Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO