Incentives can be positive or negative
Negative "incentives" are tantamount to "punishments" - I'm astounded we are planning before the process even starts, to punish Registrars who have not yet completed what they're not yet required to complete ? There can be no accurate or meaningful predictions based on %age done as at point X in time by Registrar Y unless you're the management of Registrar Y and know the intricacies of your own implementation plan and schedule - and if you are Registrar Y, you already know the numbers that are important.
The reaction below (and others on this thread) demonstrate pretty clearly that a registrar would not wish to appear on a public list that shows a relatively low percentage of registrations for which the data has been provided to the registry.
More specifically Registrars do not want their business confidential information summed into a 1-liner which has zero correlation to their actual progress, cannot be used to draw any useful statistical results, will be used to lambast them irrespective of what the actual number is by all-and-sundry who think Registrars are simple Devils in DNS and as one of the 2 directly impacted groups (the other being the thin Registry) don't see a benefit to doing so, particularly as the timing/tech/whatever in moving to thick whois may not even be under their direct/actual control.
Accelerated compliance would benefit the credibility of ICANN and of the multi-stakeholder model, both of which are losing credibility the longer this implementation process drags on
ICANNs credibility and that of the MSM is not dependant on any given PDP, and whilst some Working Groups may be considered to have more "impact" than others (for example Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability), this is not one of those WGs - we're changing where you pickup your ticket for the bus, not deploying instantaneous faster than light travel free of charge for everyone.
And it would benefit the public (ultimately it was the benefit to the public that motivated ICANN to adopt this consensus policy in the first place)
"Benefit" being very subjective dependant on who the "public" is, as the 2 primary impacts are some potential loss of data-control and some potential change of privacy laws/protection, everything else _should_ end up functionally identical to what exists right now
What I am drawing from this thread is that the registrars in this group do not want to see any incentives provided for them to do their jobs faster than the 18 months they have decided on as the deadline for doing the job
I've not seen any registrar say how long they'll take to undertake this process - it would be difficult to even guestimate as the implantation methods are still being discussed It needs to be done right, not done quick. Suggested 'incentive' if you want one - any Registrar who reaches 100% gets a 250% rebate on their accreditation fess every quarter until the last one 'catches up' or the dealine is reached. You'll probably find people can assign the necessary development resource for what otherwise is a burden/task for which they will be paying dearly in direct and indirect costs, and may not be benefitting - but of course that's the registrars "job" as you put it. Rob --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus