I agree.  IF the purpose is to underline the need for consequential amendments, that point can be made in the text, it does not need a recommendation surely.

Stephanie Perrin

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

 

 

 

 

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 3:00 PM
To: gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed language in relation to process for amendments to RRAs

 

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) 

Email: marika.konings@icann.org  

 

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. 

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team