Before we get too far ahead of ourselves here --- there is not yet agreement on the content of any communication from this IRT to GNSO Council and still some open/unresolved questions on Marc’s draft. Also, to clarify --- it was this IRT (acting in accordance with the Board resolution) that sought legal guidance on thick Whois – it was not the GNSO council. If we think that an update of that advice is needed, we can ask for it. At least so it seems to me. Staff, do you agree? [image001] Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | www.msk.com<http://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 Chris Pelling Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:51 PM To: Joyce Lin Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. Totally agree with Joyce here - and it may well work out to be faster too. Kind regards, Chris ________________________________ From: "Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com<mailto:jlin@007names.com>> To: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>, "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, 4 October, 2016 17:41:50 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. Theo, If the procedure permits, go straight to the GNSO and let them go to ICANN council if they have issues. It would be less hassle for us. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Cc: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments.
Hi Dennis,
Yes, we agreed to move in parralel. I kind hoped we moved further with that GNSO memo though. The conflict between local WHOIS is still lingering around like Volker mentioned.
If we are going to move into the comment period draft wise then I would like to see side notes that we did not deal with the GNSO memo and we did not deal with WHOIS conflicts and local law.
And I kinda hoped you guys would have checked what the correct procedure is as Alan pointed out. Do we go to ICANN legal first or do we go straight to GNSO. I am in favor of going straight to the GNSO, this is above our pay grade here.
For the rest no problems.
Theo
Dennis Chang schreef op 2016-10-03 06:56 PM:
Thanks Chris for following through on your action regarding the Registrar’s request for the alternative solution. Since your email to the IRT satisfies the triggers for the “request” in section 2.2, We can simplify the policy by combining 2.2 with 2.1 using the same date. Btw, 1 August 2017 provides the 6-month duration that Marc had requested for development.
Below if my proposed change.
From: 2.1. Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism by 1 August 2017 for registrars to migrate registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick). 2.2. Registry Operator MUST upon request provide an alternative bulk transfer mechanism by 1 February 2018 for registrars to migrate data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick). The request MUST be made by 1 August 2017.
To: 2.1. Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism and an alternative bulk transfer mechanism by 1 August 2017 for registrars to migrate registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick).
As for your question about the draft privacy memo to GNSO Council, the IRT had agreed the implementation project will continue in parallel to any activity related to the memo. This was agreed upon when the subject was broached at the Helsinki ICANN meeting and again in subsequent meetings. Our plan to continue with the implementation work including the Public Comment has not changed. It is the goal of our implementation team to press forward as best we can to meet the 1 February 2017 Announcement Date per the project schedule we’ve agreed upon.
Thanks for your support and look forward to our meeting tommorrow. Dennis Chang
On 10/3/16, 5:11 AM, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> wrote:
Thanks Chris, for posting on the RrSG distribution list and engage with our members.
Theo
Chris Pelling schreef op 2016-10-02 01:46 PM: > Good afternoon all, > > First and foremost we have had ten registrars (including myself) > interested in the alternative solution, so day one there will be at > least 1 triggering it - as that will be me. > This being just the RrSG folks, once ICANN reach out to all registrar > from GDD, I am positive you will find more. But, as mentioned - I have > had active requests for the alternative to be created. > > Further questions: > > 1. The Verisign/GNSO memo, does this need to go directly to GNSO, or, > via ICANN legal first, I assume this will happen before the public > comment period? > > 2. Alan G. said that a legal review by ICANN legal is needed (I > mentioned to include EU lawyers) because the original legal review in > 2015 did not include Safe Harbor, nor contemplating that Safe Harbor > would be invalidated, where are we on this and I assume this will > happen before the public comment period? > > 3. Implementation notes state there is a procedure for handling whois > conflicts. However, the current method for handling WHOIS conflicts is > not working, and the WHOIS IAG version is at the GNSO and still does > not include an effective procedure as EU privacy regulators are not > giving statements to trigger the procedure. So this kind of sits at a > stalemate, is ICANN going to remove this? (I would assume they can't, > but we do need more info/guidance) > > The above points 1 and 2, will these happen before the public comment > period or after? Please note if you state afterwards, we are all > potentially sitting here wasting time, as once those 2 legals come > back, it is more than likely we will all end up reviewing those and > going for a second public comment period based on new findings and > changes to existing work - I am just trying to save time here (and > everyone's sanity) :-) > > Kind regards, > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt>
