Thanks Mr. Tanaka for the question and the interesting scenario you presented.

The notification Appendix A is designed to list all INGOs. The current example shows two. Names. For your other questions

I’ve replied to your comment on the doc and you should have received an email of my reply.

I’ve duplicated it here for everyone for convenience.

Tanaka Comment:

I think we need more time to think this through vis-a-vis registries and registrars requirements. If say, an applied-for string has 10 idn variants, the registry would need to do 10 separate claims checks to the Claims System (CS) (assuming the INGO only registered one name and no variants). Then, would the registry get 10 different Claims Notices IDs from the CS? Will these 10 CNIDs be passed to the registrar and the registrar would present 10 notices to the registrant, to which he/she need to accept? what is registrant accepts two but rejects the other 9. How would that scenario work?

Chang Reply

Agree that we need to think this through. My thought is that this is the detail we will deal with in the Claims Spec which we will be creating. We will consult with the larger community before releasing it. I have ideas but I'd like wait till the implementation after our publication of this policy if you agree. This is the reason of defining our effective date as we did in section 2.2.

Please feel free to give me call on Monday if you’d like or let me know a good time for me to call you.

+1 213 293 7889

Skype: dennisSchang

When we decide on a design, let’s capture it on our FAQ.

I can see this coming up again.

Thanks

Dennis Chang

From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 1:31 PM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>
Cc: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO&INGO Policy Implementation: IRT meeting result and the plan to proceed with publication

Hi Dennis,

I’m processing Section 5.1.8 and have more questions which I posted directly in the document. I can jump on a call after the long weekend if you prefer.

Thanks.

D.Tanaka

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 9:00 PM
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>
Cc: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO&INGO Policy Implementation: IRT meeting result and the plan to proceed with publication

Dear IGO&INGO IRT,

Thank you for your valuable and insightful guidance today.

As a summary, we made the following decisions on the language at the meeting toay.

1. Add a hyperlink to the INGO Claims System specification.

2. Add “and GNSO” to the list update process when consulting with GAC. Section 4.4.

3. Add IDN Variant case to ensure claims notification for those ROs with IDN Variant policy. Section 5.1.8

4. Add Integration testing requirement for INGO Claims system for clarity and avoid assumption that this will be done since it’s a standard practice. 5.1.9

5. Do not add the Qualified Launch Program clause but instead Add the “or prior to Effective Allocation if the domain name is not going to be available for registration during General Registration” to section 5.0

This method was chosen to make the INGO notification work for current and future QLP like programs

6. Remove INGO contact information from Appendix A. Rationale: the registrant can find the contact using the INGO name and URL on their own.

This was done to avoid gathering, storing, or transmitting potentially personal information where we do need it.

You’ll find a clean version attached for your convenience.

It was downloaded from our collaborative on-line document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cAVS27yshnZIVrbwQQ_zFXWMnOXtcQasj4fnmPOo1vQ/edit?ts=5a0ded36[docs.google.com]

For those IRT members not at the meeting, we are asking for your final review and support of the policy.

The recording should be up on our wiki soon.

Let us know if you have questions.

Barring any issues or objection, we’d like to proceed with the publication process next week.

Thanks

Dennis Chang

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 8:33 AM
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>
Cc: Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO&INGO Policy Implementation; 21 Nov 2017 meeting

Dear IGO&INGO IRT,

By now, you should have received a meeting invite from Michelle for next week Tuesdays, 21 November 2017

We are requesting to meet with the IRT one more time prior to publication.

You will note that we have made a few suggested additions to the policy language with brief explanation.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cAVS27yshnZIVrbwQQ_zFXWMnOXtcQasj4fnmPOo1vQ/edit#heading=h.3znysh7[docs.google.com]

We’ll discuss this in detail at the meeting but here is the summary.

1. Add a hyperlink to the INGO Claims System specification

2. Add “and GNSO” to the list update process when consulting with GAC.

3. Add IDN Variant case to avoid registration of INGO names due to the RO Variant policy

4. Add Integration testing requirement for INGO Claims system for clarity and avoid assumption that this will be done since it’s a standard practice

5. Add clarity if need that INGO claims happens on the Qualified Launch Program.

Some of these will be obvious but others are nuanced so we probably need to discuss.

Please join us.

—

Kind Regards,

Dennis S. Chang

GDD Services & Engagement Program Director

+1 213 293 7889

Skype: dennisSchang