- Gnso-impl-irtpc-rt - lists.icann.org

Standing Meeting Time for IRTP C Implementation Review Team
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 24, 2014

Feb. 24, 2014

Greetings IRTP C IRT: ICANN Staff is currently working together to finalize a proposed implementation plan which we would like to share with you on our next call. Going forward, I am estimating that we will hold calls every 2-3 weeks (if needed) at a standing time. I have proposed a few times in the below Doodle Poll to see which "standing time" works the best for everyone on the IRT. http://doodle.com/ukuy47shzt8zuxup Please respond to the Doodle Poll at your earliest convenience, and I will revert to you with further information when we have agreed on a standing meeting time. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN

1 0

RE: A possible fix?
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J.

3 4

RE: A possible fix?
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

One could argue that with the upcoming changes to whois and a switch to thick for all that this might be better handled by the registry .. Or am I missing something? -- 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 James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:03 PM To: Batteiger, Simonetta; Michele Neylon - Blacknight; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Re: A possible fix? Hi Simonetta. The new policy lays out several situations under which an FOA would no longer be valid. T he problem discussed during today's call was: How will the (would be) Gaining Registrar know that the FOA they are holding is invalid? J. From: <Batteiger>, Simonetta <simonetta(a)sedo.com<mailto:simonetta@sedo.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at 16:59 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: RE: A possible fix? Also sorry for having missed today's call. I'm not entirely sure which problem you're trying to solve with the ideas below. Is this about verifying if an FOA is still valid? Simonetta From: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:53 PM To: James M. Bladel; gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] RE: A possible fix? Sorry I missed the call James: 1 - which registrar? Gaining? Losing? Both? 2 - um .. hangon, unless I'm missing something that would also prevent a nameserver update, wouldn't it? (Bear in mind I'm quite tired this evening, so I could be wrong) 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@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:44 PM To: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] A possible fix? Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J.

1 0

A possible fix?
by James M. Bladel Feb. 12, 2014

Feb. 12, 2014

Hi folks. Hope no one was discouraged following todays call. These things are very difficult (if they weren't anyone could do them)...but not impossible! So thinking a bit more, I believe we can address some of these issues by requiring two practices: (1) Registrars must take two WHOIS "snapshots": One to obtain the FOA, and one at Transfer execution. (2) Registries must "lock" (ServerUpdateProhibited, ServerTransferProhibited,ServerDeleteProhibited) on all names known to be subject to a UDRP or TDRP. Reasoning: By comparing the WHOIS record at both occasions, the Gaining Registrar can spot any differences in Registrant data or Domain Status. This will provide the necessary visibility to invalidate the FOA and re-authorize the transfer. Thoughts? J.

1 0

Meeting Invitation Take 2: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 7, 2014

Feb. 7, 2014

Thank you for letting me know about your other call, Mikey and Chris. I apologize for the double-booking; the Advisory Group Call was not published on the GNSO calendar. I have moved the call back one hour to accommodate the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement group members. Please find the new details below: Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1600 UTC Estimated duration: 60min Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Please take a look at the attached document, which incorporates IRTP C Rec. 2, before the call. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN From: Chris Chaplow <chris(a)andaluciaws.com> Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:59 AM To: 'Mike O'Connor' <mike(a)haven2.com>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 That would help, if possible. I have same conflict as Mikey. Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com/> Information about Andalucia, Spain. De: owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org] En nombre de Mike O'Connor Enviado el: martes, 04 de febrero de 2014 3:46 Para: Caitlin Tubergen CC: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt(a)icann.org Asunto: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014 argh. that¹s an exact conflict with the Advisory Group for Digital Engagement standing meeting. any chance of bumping this one forward or backward an hour? or forward or backward a week? mikey On Feb 3, 2014, at 5:57 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org> wrote: Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. Please find details for the call below. Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN <Revised Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy IRTPC2.docx> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://www.haven2.com> , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

3 2

Meeting invitation: IRTP C IRT Call on Wednesday 12 February 2014
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Greetings IRTP-C Implementation Review Team, The next IRTP C IRT Call will be held Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 1500 UTC. ICANN staff has begun work on IRTP C Recommendation 2 (time limiting of FOAs), and I have included a draft of the revised IRTP. We can discuss the revised IRTP on our next call. Please find details for the call below. Name of teleconference: IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team Meeting Date: Wednesday 12th February 2014 Time: (in UTC): 1500 UTC Adigo code: 28462745 Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/irtppartc/ Thank you. Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN

2 1

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