Roger, that data would be useful, of course, and should be published, but by itself it would provide no incentive to registrars to accelerate compliance. Percentages
of transitioned domains by registrar would be needed.
Steve
From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Roger D Carney
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:25 AM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
Good Morning,
Maybe there is a middle ground here, where we can be transparent without creating targets. What if Verisign just published an overall progress status: number of domains at the beginning of transition, number
of domain creates since transition began, number of domain deletes since transition, number of domains with contacts, and percent complete?
Thanks
Roger
From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 AM
To: 'theo geurts' <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>;
gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons.
First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo’s e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating
implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business.
Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the
Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted
parties have lost in this process.
Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates.
Steven J. Metalitz
|
Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 |
met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
LLP
|
www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS.
THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE
IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney';
gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
I agree with Roger.
I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public?
Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input.
Thanks,
Theo
On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically.
Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation
T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com
Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP | www.msk.com
1818 N Street NW, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20036
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU.
From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
Good Morning,
The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression.
The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick.
Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry.
Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations.
Thanks
Roger
From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick
Dear IRT Members,
As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others .
To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions:
- Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data
- Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC
- Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick
Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ?
Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic.
Best Regards
Fabien
From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>
Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM
To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions
Thanks. Fabien,
I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with.
This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG.
Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months.
Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything?
How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this.
Best,
Theo Geurts
On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote:
Dear IRT Members,
In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then.
We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard.
Thank you for your attention
--
Fabien Betremieux
Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager
Global Domains Division, ICANN
_______________________________________________Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing listGnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
_______________________________________________Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing listGnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt