Thick Transition policy draft v5 for IRT review
Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached is the draft transition policy document for IRT review. Now version 5 both clean and redlined. As before, please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org "One World, One Internet"
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
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
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
HI Dennis, You missed one of the questions namely the Legal review was not answered - can you answer that please ? Kind regards, Chris From: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> To: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "chris" <chris@netearth.net> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Monday, 3 October, 2016 17:56:57 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
Chris, thank you for following up on the bulk transfer item. Dennis, I support your proposed changes, I think you've accurately captured what was discussed during previous IRT calls. Thank you, Marc Anderson -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:57 PM To: gtheo; Chris Pelling Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org 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
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> 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
I agree with Theo regarding side notes as we seem to wish to push on the comment period +1 Sorry for shortness, as on mobile. Sent from Chris on the move... On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:09 PM +0100, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote: 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> 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
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> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: <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> 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
Totally agree with Joyce here - and it may well work out to be faster too. Kind regards, Chris From: "Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com> To: "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: 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> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: <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> 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
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>
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
Hi Joyce, Just to quickly answer that from the point of view that I put the request out to the RrSG, we have sufficient (provided to Dennis and Marc offlist to stop scraping of email addresses) requests that at the very least there are more than a few (3+) the trigger only needing 1 to trigger it. I will trigger it day 1 as I mentioned in one of my previous emails. If we do need a date, or timeline, then great, I can set that in my calendar - otherwise I see it as 1st Agusut 2017. Kind regards, Chris From: "Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "chris" <chris@netearth.net> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 4 October, 2016 17:35:19 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 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
Chris, Thanks for the clarification. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Pelling To: Joyce Lin Cc: Dennis Chang ; gtheo ; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. Hi Joyce, Just to quickly answer that from the point of view that I put the request out to the RrSG, we have sufficient (provided to Dennis and Marc offlist to stop scraping of email addresses) requests that at the very least there are more than a few (3+) the trigger only needing 1 to trigger it. I will trigger it day 1 as I mentioned in one of my previous emails. If we do need a date, or timeline, then great, I can set that in my calendar - otherwise I see it as 1st Agusut 2017. Kind regards, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Joyce Lin" <jlin@007names.com> To: "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "chris" <chris@netearth.net> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, 4 October, 2016 17:35:19 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 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
Chris, Would you be willing to put me in touch with some/all of the registrars interested in the alternative solution? We have a couple of ideas on how we would like to implement this, but it would be helpful to talk to people who would actually be using this solution. I could facilitate but I’m looking to get the person who will be writing the requirements/use cases in touch with the actual users. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:46 AM To: Dennis Chang Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 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
Hi Marc, That's quite simple - 1 of them will be me. I will enquire with the others if they would like to engage at this time. I did reach out to you last week off list re this exact point but had no repy. Let me do that email to them now. Feel free to get them to reach out to me at their earliest convenience. Kind regards, Chris From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> To: "chris" <chris@netearth.net>, "Dennis Chang" <dennis.chang@icann.org> Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Monday, 3 October, 2016 19:55:00 Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. Chris, Would you be willing to put me in touch with some/all of the registrars interested in the alternative solution? We have a couple of ideas on how we would like to implement this, but it would be helpful to talk to people who would actually be using this solution. I could facilitate but I’m looking to get the person who will be writing the requirements/use cases in touch with the actual users. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Pelling Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 7:46 AM To: Dennis Chang Cc: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Questions from last meeting, Alternative method and some comments. 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
Dennis, I have some additional feedback on the thick transition policy document. Section 2.3 in this version reads: 2.3 By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1 concerning relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) available to Registrars and by 1 August 2017 for Section 2.2. I believe one of the intents of this section is to require Registries to have the OT&E environment ready for Registrars to begin testing with contacts starting 1 May 2017. This is what we’ve discussed on IRT calls and what is represented in the timeline chart. It has been pointed out to me that reading this section it is not clear that Registries are required to start supporting contact operations in OT&E on 1 May 2017. I suggest splitting this out into two sections one for the documentation requirement, and one for the OT&E requirement. How about something along these lines: By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1 and Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism in relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) by 1 May 2017 for registrars to test the migration of registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick). I think that makes it a little clearer what is required and when. Thank you, Marc From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 12:58 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Transition policy draft v5 for IRT review Dear Thick Whois IRT, Attached is the draft transition policy document for IRT review. Now version 5 both clean and redlined. As before, please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible. — Kind Regards, Dennis S. Chang GDD Services & Engagement Program Director +1 213 293 7889 Skype: dennisSchang www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> "One World, One Internet"
I am good with this Marc (like you need my blessing, lol). Slightly different, this gives like 90 days of testing more or less. This is under normal circumstances enough. However, we might be dealing with some other ICANN-related stuff. So this 90 day period is going to be short actually. This itself is no issue I suspect. But we are dealing with some rather old data, far older then .ORG ever faced. When we migrated data over several new backends we had a plan B and C. Does Verisign have a plan B? Plan B in the sense we hit issues with on OTE that the IRT never anticipated. As an IRT I think we covered a ton of stuff here, but there always edge cases and it is not up to us to discuss them or have solutions. But what are we gonna do with the edge cases and what if we do encounter a major problem the IRT did not anticipate? Thanks! Theo Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-10-06 08:30 PM:
Dennis,
I have some additional feedback on the thick transition policy document. Section 2.3 in this version reads:
2.3 By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1 concerning relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) available to Registrars and by 1 August 2017 for Section 2.2.
I believe one of the intents of this section is to require Registries to have the OT&E environment ready for Registrars to begin testing with contacts starting 1 May 2017. This is what we’ve discussed on IRT calls and what is represented in the timeline chart. It has been pointed out to me that reading this section it is not clear that Registries are required to start supporting contact operations in OT&E on 1 May 2017.
I suggest splitting this out into two sections one for the documentation requirement, and one for the OT&E requirement. How about something along these lines:
_By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1_
_ _
and
Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism in relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) by 1 May 2017 for registrars to test the migration of registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick).
I think that makes it a little clearer what is required and when.
Thank you,
Marc
FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Dennis Chang SENT: Saturday, October 01, 2016 12:58 PM TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Transition policy draft v5 for IRT review
Dear Thick Whois IRT,
Attached is the draft transition policy document for IRT review.
Now version 5 both clean and redlined.
As before, please provide your comments prior to the meeting if possible.
—
Kind Regards,
Dennis S. Chang
GDD Services & Engagement Program Director
+1 213 293 7889
Skype: dennisSchang
www.icann.org [1] "One World, One Internet"
Links: ------ [1] http://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
First on Marc’s suggested changes. I see the point of your clarification and thanks to your team for catching it. Question: does the alternative bulk transfer mechanism require OT&E phase also? If so, may I suggest, By 1 August, Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism and an alternative bulk transfer mechanism in relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) for registrars to test the migration of registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., transition from Thin to Thick). If you agree, I’ll make this change as part of our version 6 which we are targeting as the final version. Second on Theo’s question on edge cases that IRT has not considered; I’d like to remind ourselves of the current work scope time to time. We are working on a policy to start a public comment. As such, we need to keep our focus on what we need to start the public comment. This is why we review the public comment readiness chart at each meeting. I welcome the team to bring up all and every issues we can think of so we can quickly categorize them in their right place for work. It could be a procedure item that we can work on as a part of implementation for example. Thanks Dennis Chang On 10/6/16, 12:56 PM, "gtheo" <gtheo@xs4all.nl> wrote: I am good with this Marc (like you need my blessing, lol). Slightly different, this gives like 90 days of testing more or less. This is under normal circumstances enough. However, we might be dealing with some other ICANN-related stuff. So this 90 day period is going to be short actually. This itself is no issue I suspect. But we are dealing with some rather old data, far older then .ORG ever faced. When we migrated data over several new backends we had a plan B and C. Does Verisign have a plan B? Plan B in the sense we hit issues with on OTE that the IRT never anticipated. As an IRT I think we covered a ton of stuff here, but there always edge cases and it is not up to us to discuss them or have solutions. But what are we gonna do with the edge cases and what if we do encounter a major problem the IRT did not anticipate? Thanks! Theo Anderson, Marc schreef op 2016-10-06 08:30 PM: > Dennis, > > I have some additional feedback on the thick transition policy > document. Section 2.3 in this version reads: > > 2.3 By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable > Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes > necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1 concerning > relevant Operating Test Environments (OT&E) available to Registrars > and by 1 August 2017 for Section 2.2. > > I believe one of the intents of this section is to require Registries > to have the OT&E environment ready for Registrars to begin testing > with contacts starting 1 May 2017. This is what we’ve discussed on > IRT calls and what is represented in the timeline chart. It has been > pointed out to me that reading this section it is not clear that > Registries are required to start supporting contact operations in OT&E > on 1 May 2017. > > I suggest splitting this out into two sections one for the > documentation requirement, and one for the OT&E requirement. How > about something along these lines: > > _By 1 May 2017, Registry Operator MUST provide to applicable > Registrars and ICANN, documentation reflecting the system changes > necessary to support the requirements of Sections 2.1_ > > _ _ > > and > > Registry Operator MUST deploy an EPP mechanism in relevant Operating > Test Environments (OT&E) by 1 May 2017 for registrars to test the > migration of registration data for Existing Domain Names (i.e., > transition from Thin to Thick). > > I think that makes it a little clearer what is required and when. > > Thank you, > > Marc > > FROM: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Dennis > Chang > SENT: Saturday, October 01, 2016 12:58 PM > TO: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > SUBJECT: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Thick Transition policy draft v5 > for IRT review > > Dear Thick Whois IRT, > > Attached is the draft transition policy document for IRT review. > > Now version 5 both clean and redlined. > > As before, please provide your comments prior to the meeting if > possible. > > — > > Kind Regards, > > Dennis S. Chang > > GDD Services & Engagement Program Director > > +1 213 293 7889 > > Skype: dennisSchang > > www.icann.org [1] "One World, One Internet" > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DQIDaQ&c... > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list > Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt
participants (6)
-
Anderson, Marc -
Chris Pelling -
Dennis Chang -
gtheo -
Joyce Lin -
Metalitz, Steven