December 2013 - Gnso-impl-irtpc-rt

IRTP C Clarification
by Caitlin Tubergen Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: * the 2013 RAA; * the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); * IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and * IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN

3 6

Holiday card
by Glen de Saint Géry Dec. 29, 2013

Dec. 29, 2013

[cid:578EC140-800D-4AE9-B80A-BC051E7CE466]

1 0

RE: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Dec. 10, 2013

Dec. 10, 2013

Caitlin / Tim One of the things that a couple of people have suggested is to rollout updates / changes that have an operational impact at fixed periods throughout the year .. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:52 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org Cc: Tim Cole Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] IRTP C Clarification Hello Mikey, James, and IRTP C IRT, I attended the IRTP D session at ICANN48 remotely. As it was pretty early Los Angeles time, I wanted to touch base with you to make sure I understood the effect of various comments made during the session. I have attached the transcript for ease of reference. On page 31 of the transcript, James asked if we could pause implementation efforts for IRTP C due to something that was uncovered in IRTP D discussions. I wanted to confirm what was meant by "pause implementation efforts". During our last IRTP C call, there was a discussion of a face-to-face meeting to finely tune the implementation plan on a whiteboard. I am happy to arrange that meeting; I just want to confirm that I should still move forward in light of the IRTP D discussions in Buenos Aires. Additionally, in light of requested delays, Tim Cole asked how we should allay the community concern of repeated implementation delays, and Mikey asked if we could prepare some messaging regarding delays. I have included a few points below to consider: Members of the registrar community expressed some concern about all of the new contractual and policy implementation efforts that were coming down the pipeline including but not limited to: * the 2013 RAA; * the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (PEDNR/ERRP); * IRTP Part B Recommendations 8 and 9; and * IRTP Part C Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 To that end, ICANN plans to work with the registrar community on an implementation roll-out plan, designed to make policy implementation cycles more predictable and thereby more manageable for registrars to incorporate into their business models. Some of the recommendations of IRTP D appear to conflict with recommendations of IRTP C, and until those conflicts are resolved, the team is recommending that implementation efforts for IRTP C be paused. It may also be beneficial to acknowledge that the members of the IRTP C Implementation Review Team have extensive overlap with the IRTP D Working Group. Feel free to edit the above messaging as you see appropriate. Also, please let me know if you would like me to schedule an in-person meeting for January or February, depending on availability. I want to keep the ball rolling; I just want to be sure I correctly understood the instructions of the group. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN

1 0

Waivers of GNSO operating procedures
by Mike O'Connor Dec. 3, 2013

Dec. 3, 2013

there's nothing like an upcoming meeting to focus the mind. i too would like to apologize for this last-minute post. Marie-Laure was all over this and i… um… wasn't. sorry about that. anyway, here's a summary of the email thread between Marie-Laure and me. i agree with Marie, it would be helpful to sharpen up the problem-statement a bit before we dive into describing the solution. mikey The request: Waivers and/or Exceptions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Which group do you represent? GNSO Council To which rules or processes do you refer? Submitting a motion and possibly other procedures Please outline the problems: The Council does not have a mechanism to waive or invoke an exception to and of its operating procedures. An example is whether the deadline for submitting motions could be waived in certain circumstances. Quote from Jonathan Robinson in the transcript at the Wrap Up Meeting in Durban on 18 July 2013: "And essentially I wasn’t empowered as chair by our rulebook to allow that motion to be put on the table even if technically although we have done it by precedent and prior practice, even if no one objected from the council I didn’t really - there isn’t really device in the rulebook to allow that to take place. So I personally I think that’s an area we should look at is the - when and under what circumstances - formal council procedure can be bypassed in the event that there is no objection from the council?" What specific changes do you propose to address the identified problems? The SCI should consider whether and how the Council could vote outside of a meeting and under what circumstances. Do you have any additional suggestion for making the rules/processes easier to administer? A waiver mechanism could allow the Council to consider a motion or document after the deadline of notice/submission to the Council has passed. A suggestion from Thomas Rickert Preferred path: Ask for the waiver if all councillors are present or represented. If waivers are granted, record them. That is the safest option. Alternate route in case not all councillors are present or represented: Ask whether councillors object - if someone objects - end of story If noone objects, go on record advising absent councillors to object to the Council leadership should they wish to do so. Marie-Laure's comments: Thomas proposal seems reasonable. I would add the following: -In both scenarios, it would be pertinent to specify whether the waiver has to be given orally or in a written form (email); -Scenario 2 (all councillors are not present) specify a deadline (maybe one or two weeks) when councillors who were not present are requested to object. -Scenario 2, specify that silence is interpreted as non-objection in case one of the councillors argue that they wanted to object but missed the emails where they were requested to object. -Key question that remain to be answered to : should this waiver be unlimited in time ? I think it shouldn´t to avoid abuses but it should at the same provide enough flexibility for the chair to address a particular issue with the councilors thus how can we reach a balance? should the waiver be specific as to what t is meant for ie. it should clearly specify what it is for in other word it should not become a permission to bypass any procedures under any circumstances. But I have been reading the background information that Julie sent (copied and pastel below) and I am wondering whether we are working on the right problem. It seems that from the text below, the problem highlighted by Jonathan was that he did not need us to establish rules for how waivers can be used but rather establishing guidelines as to when and how procedural rules can be bypassed when there is a waiver/exception. Which is quite different. Question for the group: Marie-Laure has the nub of it. what is the problem that the SCI is being asked to address? some discussion around this would be really helpful on today's call. thanks, mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0