Dear Marc and IRT, Thanks for your comment on the policy language. I’ve modified the subject line to have this email trail focused on Marc’s comment on the policy language sections 2.4 and 2.10 as other discussion continue regarding the privacy memo. We’ve reviewed section 2.4 at our last meeting but perhaps not sufficient. Section 2.4 was meant to convey the thought that the RO must be operational for Thick by 1 August 2017 (Must be able to accept full Thick or reduced data set) Section 2.5 makes it now a requirement that data submitted must be Thick and RO must reject less than Thick from 1 May 2018. (no more reduced data set) We haven’t discussed Section 2.10 yet. I do want to point out is that the Billing Contact is covered in the CL&D Policy already. Regardless, if you or other members of the IRT would like to propose languages to improve the clarity of the policy, please provide them to me and I’ll prepare them for our meeting tomorrow. Btw, I’ve added link for the implementation note as you suggested. Thanks Dennis Chang From: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson@verisign.com> Date: Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM To: Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org>, "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] [for iRT review] Draft Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS Dennis, Thank you for sending the updated Transition Policy document. I want to send some feedback on this version prior to Tuesday’s call/discussion. · Roger Carney already mentioned this, but this draft contains no mention of the reduced validation rules the IRT discussed. In fact section 2.4 requires contact operations to be supported as described in RFC 5733 which prescribes required fields. This would prevent the implementation of reduced validation rules. · Section 2.10 mentions Registrant/Admin/Tech contact types but does not mention the billing contact type at all. For clarity, I would like to request the policy explicitly state if the Billing contact is required, optional, disallowed or left to the Registry to decide. · Noting Theo’s comments about the Implementation Notes, I would like to suggest a link to the procedure be added to that section. Thank you, Marc Anderson From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Chang Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 5:54 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] [for iRT review] Draft Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS Dear Thick Whois IRT, Thank you for your participation and contribution today. Attached is the draft policy document we worked on at the meeting together: one version with redline and one clean as V2. We’ll continue the team edit at our meeting next week to finalize the document. Same time same day same call in info. Agenda on IRT wiki: * Transition from thin to thick * Draft Consensus Policy document review - continue from section 2.9 * Public Comment readiness * Whois Conflict Procedure (if time permits) * Draft memo to GNSO Council regarding Privacy (if time permits) * Next steps — 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" From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Dennis Chang <dennis.chang@icann.org<mailto:dennis.chang@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 5:05 PM To: "gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>" <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] [for iRT review] Draft Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, and .JOBS Dear Thick Whois Policy Implementation Review Team, Attached for your review is our initial draft of the Thick Whois Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS. The draft Policy includes the various elements discussed in our recent meeting on this topic. As you review the draft, you will find bracketed text in four sections: sections 2.9, 2.10, 3.4 and 3.5. These sections are bracketed because they reference the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy and the Registration Data Access Protocol gTLD Profile. As you may be aware, a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) was submitted by the Registries Stakeholder Group in August regarding the Registry Registration Data Directory Services Consistent Labeling and Display Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdds-labeling-policy-2016-07-26-en> that was published on 26 July 2016. The RfR objects to the inclusion of RDAP in the Consensus Policy. While the RfR goes through its own process, we thought it was important to continue progressing the implementation project with the goal of opening Public Comment in September and announcing the Transition Policy by 1 February 2017 per our schedule. Therefore, the text is bracketed as it may need to be revisited pending the resolution of the RfR and we wanted to directly call the IRT’s attention to it. We will review all contents of the document at our next IRT meeting as a team but please provide your comments in advance via email if possible. Thank you for your support! — 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"