Separating the email trail for Alternative method. Hi Joyce, To be clear, as you say “registry go ahead to have the alternative mechanism available by Aug. 1, 2017 regardless” is the intention. The reason being that Chris has confirmed the need for it along with other registrars already. Thanks Dennis Chang On 10/4/16, 9:35 AM, "Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com> wrote: Hi Dennis, If you meant to drop 2.2 completely, your combined paragraph states that by August 1, 2017 the registry's EPP and alternative bulk transfer have to be deployed > 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... Then what is the deadline for those registrars who need to use alternative bulk transfer option to apply ? Don't we need a separate deadline for those registrars to apply so the registry can tell if there is indeed a need to develop and deploy the alternative mechanism? Or do we want the registry go ahead to have the alternative mechanism available by Aug. 1, 2017 regardless? Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> To: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; "Chris Pelling" <chris@netearth.net> Cc: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. > 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> 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 > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt