For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today¹s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today¹s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ³Designated Agent² in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today¹s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf> ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars¹ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today¹s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today¹s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of ³Designated Agent² in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13ma y15-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today¹s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
Hiya's Personally speaking, I am good with a 6 month cycle. Then again, I been looking at this since November last year and had several team meetings at the office, and since we use the scrum methodology for a few years now we simply add this to a few sprints. For other Registrars I could imagine they need more time, not every Registrar is a member of the RrSG (sad but true) and then there is that huge blind spot called Asia. None of them where present during the WG or IRT, nor did we receive any comments from that region. Best, Theo Van: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Aan: gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Vrijdag 24 juli 2015 04:33:53 Onderwerp: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx>
Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
Hi, Team.
This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final.
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... 5-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... 5-en.pdf> ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars¹ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle.
As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin
From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Hi, Team.
For those of you unable to make it to today¹s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/.
I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today¹s call. There are also a few numbering changes.
There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at:
(1) the definition of ³Designated Agent² in paragraph 1(c).
(2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse).
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... 5-en.pdf), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle.
If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today¹s date.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
<Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx>
looks fine from here. thanks! m
On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Michele.
The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing.
As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July.
Many thanks,
Caitlin
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Caitlin
Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <http://www.blacknight.host/> http://www.mneylon.social <http://www.mneylon.social/> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal
On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi, Team.
This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final.
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...>), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle.
As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin
From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Hi, Team.
For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/>.
I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes.
There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at:
(1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c).
(2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse).
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...>), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle.
If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s date.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
<Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx>
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a “material change” by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I’m so far behind… J. From: <owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> on behalf of Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl<mailto:theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo ________________________________ Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social<http://www.mneylon.social/> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.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.)
Not sure. We discussed the draft here at the office and one of the developers asked me about it and I was not able to answer him. Theo Van: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Aan: "Theo Geurts" <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Cc: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Donderdag 30 juli 2015 13:56:53 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a “material change” by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I’m so far behind… J. From: < owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > on behalf of Theo Geurts < theo.geurts@firstfind.nl > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor < mike@haven2.com > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org >, " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" < mike@haven2.com > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele@blacknight.com >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m
On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a “material change” by the Registrar. Has this changed?
Sorry I’m so far behind…
J.
From: <owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> on behalf of Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl <mailto:theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
It's looking pretty good,
However i got a question.
What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant.
I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option.
Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms.
Thank you.
Theo
Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com <mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
looks fine from here.
thanks!
m
On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Michele.
The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing.
As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July.
Many thanks,
Caitlin
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com <mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Caitlin
Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ <http://www.blacknight.host/> http://www.mneylon.social <http://www.mneylon.social/> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal
On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi, Team.
This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final.
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...>), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle.
As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin
From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org <mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing
Hi, Team.
For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/>.
I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes.
There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at:
(1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c).
(2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse).
Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...>), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle.
If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s date.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN
<Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.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.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Not sure what the calendar has to do with anything. Like Mike, I thought we put this issue to bed months ago, so I’m surprised to see it still coming up. Thanks- J. From: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 7:36 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl<mailto:theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>>, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a “material change” by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I’m so far behind… J. From: <owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> on behalf of Theo Geurts <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl<mailto:theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Cc: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>>, "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo ________________________________ Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org> Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July. Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social<http://www.mneylon.social/> Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July. If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: "gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org>> Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/. I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may...), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July, two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> <Transfer Policy 16Jul.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.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Mike, That's one way to look at it, after the session last Tuesday here at the office I was actually amazed there where not more questions i was not able to answer. And some folks here never seen the draft before, so there was a fresh set of eyes looking at it. I would call it a win. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com> Aan: "James Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: "Theo Geurts" <theo.geurts@firstfind.nl>, "Caitlin Tubergen" <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Donderdag 30 juli 2015 14:36:03 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] For your review: draft policy + implementation timing i would like to gently point out that our first IRT meeting was held on February 3rd **2014** i note that we're going to start the IRT for IRTP-D today. i recall no such agreement, and at 19 months and counting i'm growing weary of tweaking this 3 page draft. a cynical blogger could make the point that registrars seem to be pretty effective at dragging their feet. enough. m On Jul 30, 2015, at 6:56 AM, James M. Bladel < jbladel@godaddy.com > wrote: I thought we agreed that changes w.r.t. Privacy services would not be considered a “material change” by the Registrar. Has this changed? Sorry I’m so far behind… J. From: < owner-gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > on behalf of Theo Geurts < theo.geurts@firstfind.nl > Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:02 To: Mike O'Connor < mike@haven2.com > Cc: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org >, " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing It's looking pretty good, However i got a question. What does a Registrar do when a registrant cancels his privacy service or the privacy service is automatically terminated ? Do I simply start displaying the underlying information (foot note 1) ? Though the foot note states that I require confirmation from the prior registrant. I feel it should be added to 2.3 that in such a case the change of registrant does not apply or atleast some clarification on how to deal with his. Another thought was to add an extra section in our terms and conditions and start playing with the "designated agent" part, however that feels rather messy, but is an option. Or we agree that when a privacy service is cancelled a change or registrant does apply, though that would open up a new can of worms. Thank you. Theo Van: "Mike O'Connor" < mike@haven2.com > Aan: "Caitlin Tubergen" < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Cc: "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele@blacknight.com >, gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org Verzonden: Woensdag 29 juli 2015 23:17:16 Onderwerp: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing looks fine from here. thanks! m BQ_BEGIN On Jul 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: Thanks, Michele. The RrSG has been given until Tuesday, 4 August, to provide feedback regarding implementation timing. As a reminder — if anyone from the Implementation Review Team has any feedback on the latest version of the draft, please provide it by tomorrow, Thursday, 30 July . Many thanks, Caitlin From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Cc: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-impl-irtpc-rt] FW: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Caitlin Having discussed this within the RrSG we need more time to provide feedback to you Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Hosting & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://www.mneylon.social Sent from mobile so typos and brevity are normal On 23 Jul 2015, at 19:34, Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi, Team. This is reminder to provide any final feedback on the attached draft by Thursday, 30 July . If I do not receive any feedback on the draft, I will consider the text final. Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars’ input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six-month cycle. As there are no calls scheduled at this time, please provide any feedback you have over the email list. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 5:21 PM To: " gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-irtpc-rt@icann.org > Subject: For your review: draft policy + implementation timing Hi, Team. For those of you unable to make it to today’s call, please find a recording here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4maun572zp/ . I have attached the latest draft of the policy, which has a small change as a result of today’s call. There are also a few numbering changes. There are a few things that we are awaiting feedback on. Specifically, please take a look at: (1) the definition of “Designated Agent” in paragraph 1(c). (2) the circumstances described in paragraph 2.3, specifically 2.3(iv). (The IRT wanted to confirm that this gave registrars enough flexibility to update Whois information in the event of potential abuse). Also, I asked the members on the call about timing for coming into compliance once the policy is announced. The default policy cycle is six months ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gdd-policy-change-calendar-13may... ), but the members on the call today asked for registrars input on if six months is enough time. We may, for example, choose to deviate from the standard six month cycle. If you have any further comments on the attached draft or on the policy cycle timing, please provide feedback by Thursday, 30 July , two weeks from today’s date. Thank you! Kind regards, Caitlin Tubergen Registrar Relations and Contracts Manager ICANN BQ_BEGIN <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END <Transfer Policy 16Jul.docx> BQ_END PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) BQ_END PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com , HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
participants (5)
-
Caitlin Tubergen -
James M. Bladel -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Mike O'Connor -
Theo Geurts