To circle back on this one as we ran out of time on the call (good discussions btw).

For those who were not at the GDD meeting, Fransico tried to get some bearings.

I think 5 people voted yes, 7 people voted no, 150 people did not vote for whatever reason, though it was a Registry/Registrar meet.
And that is the "core" right there.

So today it was mentioned on the call, we might want to do a vote.
Great, I am all up for transparency and democracy.

But as it goes with democracy, who is going to be voting and do they have enough knowledge about the road ahead?
Today, well actually on the last few calls we are scratching the surface on what will, in my opinion, to be a very complex IRT as it will hit on Registry and Registrar operational levels. History has proven these are complex processes and we will get hit by tons of questions later on.

So whatever vote setup we chose (is there a choice?), it needs to represent the IRT.  You ask any Registrar, hey we can save some time by bundling some PDP's? Every Registrar will agree that it makes sense.
However, if you ask the Registrars if the bundling of the PDP's makes sense while the IRT has to go real, real deep to make this happen, most likely they will respond that it does not make sense.
I asked those questions early on the call for a reason regarding how deep we would need to go. We will be digging deep.

Thanks for making it this far.

Theo Geurts

In support of Marc and Jen here.

I think mixing them (PDP's) will put to much pressure on the current thick whois IRT and we won't gain the synergy effects. As mentioned before the T/T is rather complex.

Let's discuss this more as Jen suggested in Amsterdam.

Thanks,

Theo Geurts

On 12-5-2016 15:50, Jennifer Gore Standiford wrote:

Fabien,

 

I agree with Marc and I have also expressed my concerns and opposition to the GNSO council regarding the idea to bundle T&T and CL&D implementation. We all appreciate the notion to consolidate the various WHOIS related projects. My recommendation is as follows: 1) T/T needs to move onto an IRT process 2) The IRD recommendations need to be evaluated and as appropriate be incorporated into other GNSO policy work on WHOIS, at a minimum as it relates to the T/T IRT and RDS PDP.

 

I understand ICANN staff has put this item on the agenda for the GDD Summit and I look forward to participating in this discussion.

 

Thank you,

Jennifer

 

 

 

From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anderson, Marc
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 8:39 AM
To: Fabien Betremieux; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] CL&D - Your Input on Staff Proposals - Due Wed. 11 May

 

Fabien,

 

In response to proposal #3 below regarding the bundling of T&T and CL&D implementation, Verisign’s response is to recommend they be treated separately and we do not support combining the two.

 

I do want to express our appreciation for the effort to consolidate some of the multiple RDDS related initiatives currently underway.

 

That said, I have discussed this with my colleagues internally and we feel that there are not great synergies between T&T and CL&D and like others on the IRT are concerned that T&T would unnecessarily delay the work of this IRT.  As such it is our recommendation that a separate IRT be formed for T&T.

 

Thank you,

Marc

 

 

 

From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 7:46 AM
To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] CL&D - Your Input on Staff Proposals - Due Wed. 11 May

 

Dear IRT members, 

 

As discussed during our meeting, we would like to request you provide your input regarding Staff’s question and proposals to address the public comments received on our initial implementation plan (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rdds-output-2015-12-03-en).

 

A a reminder, these question and proposals are the following:

 

Question:

• Is the issue created by referencing the 2013 RAA in a Consensus Policy applicable to registries a matter of policy or implementation ? 

Proposals:

1. Referral of the Registry vs. Registrar Expiration Date confusion for consideration by the RDS PDP Working Group
2. Optional display of the Registrar Registration Expiration Date, with mitigation measures similar to that of the AWIP policy if displayed
3. Proposed Bundling of T&T and CL&D implementation (more details on slide 4 of our presentation this week, available at: https://community.icann.org/display/TWCPI/IRT+Meetings)

Please provide your input in response to this email by Wed. 11 May COB in your time zone. 

 

Please also note that we hope to focus our next IRT meeting (Tue. 10 May) on the implementation of the transition from thin to thick.

 

Best Regards

-- 

Fabien Betremieux

Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager

Global Domains Division, ICANN

_______________________________________________
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list
Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt