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 Staff¹s 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
Fabien, I understand staff will brief the GNSO council on IRT activities at the next council meeting on Thursday. Could this be discussed briefly on today's IRT call? If staff will be basing the briefing on the slides presented at last week's IRT meeting, will you be able to modify these to specify that any proposed consolidation of the C&LD and T&T projects will not adversely impact the timeline for implementation of Thick Whois itself? Thanks. [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 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
Hello Steve, Thank you for your message. We do have an update on this topic planned for our meeting later today. Best Regards Fabien From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met@msk.com> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 3:49 PM To: Fabien Betremieux <fabien.betremieux@icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] CL&D - Your Input on Staff Proposals - Due Wed. 11 May Fabien, I understand staff will brief the GNSO council on IRT activities at the next council meeting on Thursday. Could this be discussed briefly on today¹s IRT call? If staff will be basing the briefing on the slides presented at last week¹s IRT meeting, will you be able to modify these to specify that any proposed consolidation of the C&LD and T&T projects will not adversely impact the timeline for implementation of Thick Whois itself? Thanks. Steven J. Metalitz |Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 |met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com> Mitchell Silberberg & KnuppLLP|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 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 Staff¹s 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
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
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> [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<mailto: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
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> [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 <mailto: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
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 On 12-5-2016 21:20, theo geurts wrote:
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> [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 <mailto: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
Fabien, I'm responding to your request for input on proposal #2 below: "optional display of the Registrar Registration Expiration Date, with mitigation measures similar to that of the AWIP policy if displayed". My assumption is that AWIP mitigation measures you are referring to are the requirement to add a link after the "Domain Status" field to an ICANN hosted page providing an explanation of the various status codes as well as additional information to the footer of a WhoIs query response. For example: Domain Status: ok https://icann.org/epp#ok For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp I am NOT a fan of the AWIP requirement to add a link at the end of the Domain Status value. The Domain Status in my example isn't "ok https://icann.org/epp#ok"; it's just "ok". I find the additional data in the response confusing and unnecessary. I am not supportive of doing something similar for the expiration date. Adding something to the footer of the WhoIs response is less troublesome to me. A line providing users with a URL to get more information about expirations dates would not be difficult, but I would be interested in knowing what information would be provided at that URL. Pending that I wouldn't be opposed to that approach for Registries that choose to implement an optional Registrar Registration Expiration Date field in their RDDS output. 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
participants (5)
-
Anderson, Marc -
Fabien Betremieux -
Jennifer Gore Standiford -
Metalitz, Steven -
theo geurts