Mr. Tanaka,
Yes, the updated reserved name will clearly point to the policy as you’ve suggested.
Dear IRT,
(‘ve not received any requests for a meeting or further explanation from the IRT.
Please reply by 18 October 2017 if you do have questions or requests.
If no objection, we’ll proceed with the implementation as proposed.
Hello there Ms. Ondo,
This approach and information provided on the attached should answer your earlier questions: what’s changes from spec 5 reserved list?
Thanks
Dennis Chang
From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Date: Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:03 PM
To: Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com>, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO&INGO Policy Implementation: Reserved name list - a new approach: update existing list
Dennis,
I think the proposed approach makes sense. Please consider that the XML should clearly identify the registration rules for each group of labels or per label (e.g. “Consensus Policy” or “Not defined by an RFC, assigned by ICANN”), so that
the registry can apply the appropriate registration validation rules (i.e. available or not available for registration).
Best,
-D.Tanaka
From:
Michael Flemming <flemming@brightsconsulting.com>
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9:19 PM
To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org>, Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt] IGO&INGO Policy Implementation: Reserved name list - a new approach: update existing list
Hi Dennis,
Thanks for sending this out.
I do think this is sufficient to understand the changes taking place.
Kind regards,
Michael Flemming
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear IGO&INGO IRT,
As we were preparing to publish the policy, we needed to produce a machine-readable reserved list as mentioned in the implementation notes.
In doing so, we’ve found a better approach which will make it easier for those involved in the implementation and likely reduce confusion of having two reserved lists with duplicated names.
Instead of producing a separate reserved name list for the policy as we had originally planned, we’ve decided to update the existing reserved name list that is already published.
In another word, update the current machine-readable list that is already being used by the registry operators.
In summary, the identifiers that are in-scope of the policy will be gathered with references to the policy while the identifiers that are out-of-scope for this policy will remain with the reference to the registry agreement.
Attached is a table prepared for you to see changes from the current name list to the updated list with the policy announcement.
I was going to host another IRT meeting to explain this but thought perhaps it would be clear enough for you via this email.
Please let me know if you have questions on this or would like an IRT meeting to discuss with the team.
Otherwise, I’d appreciate your reply in support of this new approach.
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org[icann.org] "One World, One Internet"
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-ip-irt