I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically.

*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 *Roger D Carney *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Good Morning,

The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression.

The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick.

Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry.

Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations.

Thanks

Roger

*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:* Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM *To:* gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Dear IRT Members,

As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others .

To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions:

* Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick

Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ?

Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic.

Best Regards

Fabien

*From: *<gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl <mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> *Date: *Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 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: *Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions

Thanks. Fabien,

I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with.

This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG.

Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months.

Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything?

How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this.

Best,

Theo Geurts

On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote:

Dear IRT Members,

In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then.

We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard.

Thank you for your attention

--

Fabien Betremieux

Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager

Global Domains Division, ICANN

_______________________________________________

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

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

HI Steve, I am sorry Steve but I still disagree with you. If it was to be a percentage of total domains per TLD and how many have migrated from thin to thick then fine, but, I for one would not want company confidential information to be public, to me the exact number of domains in a TLD is company confidential information. Nor within the RAA does it state I have to publicly provide this information. It would be similar to me asking you Steve how many clients you have and based on percentages please specify how many are 1-50 employees, 51-250 employees etc etc However, if it were total domains in the given TLD, say 120,000,000 and 36% have migrated to far from thin to thick - I would be happier with that idea. Kind regards, Chris From: "Steven Metalitz" <met@msk.com> To: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "Roger D Carney" <rcarney@godaddy.com>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 14:46:28 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo’s e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote: I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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 Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression. The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick. Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Dear IRT Members, As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others . To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions: * Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ? Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic. Best Regards Fabien From: < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of theo geurts < gtheo@xs4all.nl > Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM To: " gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote: BQ_BEGIN Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt BQ_END _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt

Hi Steve, I am still not overly happy about the "registrar" being named. Anything over and the simple basic numbers of the "TLD" like Roger suggested is not needed in my honest opionon and will simply be used as a stick against a registrar. Only ICANN can swing the stick, as per the RAA contract between those 2 parties. I am lucky in that the platform we use will simply do it automatically, some other registrar may not be as lucky and ousting them in a public forum is not the best way to make someone do something, whereas ICANN flexing its compliance muscles generally gets things moving :) Kind regards, Chris From: "Steven Metalitz" <met@msk.com> To: "chris" <chris@netearth.net> Cc: "theo geurts" <gtheo@xs4all.nl>, "Roger D Carney" <rcarney@godaddy.com>, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 15:27:41 Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Chris, to be clear, I think I agree with you about percentages --- “ as of X date, Registrar Y has migrated ZZ% of its .com registrations to thick.” I don’t think it is necessary to make the number of registrations public. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: Chris Pelling [mailto:chris@netearth.net] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:22 AM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: theo geurts; Roger D Carney; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick HI Steve, I am sorry Steve but I still disagree with you. If it was to be a percentage of total domains per TLD and how many have migrated from thin to thick then fine, but, I for one would not want company confidential information to be public, to me the exact number of domains in a TLD is company confidential information. Nor within the RAA does it state I have to publicly provide this information. It would be similar to me asking you Steve how many clients you have and based on percentages please specify how many are 1-50 employees, 51-250 employees etc etc However, if it were total domains in the given TLD, say 120,000,000 and 36% have migrated to far from thin to thick - I would be happier with that idea. Kind regards, Chris From: "Steven Metalitz" < met@msk.com > To: "theo geurts" < gtheo@xs4all.nl >, "Roger D Carney" < rcarney@godaddy.com >, gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 14:46:28 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo’s e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: theo geurts [ mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl ] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote: I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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 Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression. The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick. Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Dear IRT Members, As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others . To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions: * Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ? Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic. Best Regards Fabien From: < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of theo geurts < gtheo@xs4all.nl > Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM To: " gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote: BQ_BEGIN Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt BQ_END _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt

Good Morning, Maybe there is a middle ground here, where we can be transparent without creating targets. What if Verisign just published an overall progress status: number of domains at the beginning of transition, number of domain creates since transition began, number of domain deletes since transition, number of domains with contacts, and percent complete? Thanks Roger From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 AM To: 'theo geurts' <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo's e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. [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: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote: I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically. [image001] 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> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression. The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick. Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. Thanks Roger 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: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Dear IRT Members, As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others . To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions: * Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ? Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic. Best Regards Fabien From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 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: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote: Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week's meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

Good Afternoon, Agreed, I don't see this overall information being much of an incentive for the registrars, but would provide transparency and progress reporting for this project. This project is about moving three TLDs to thick not about Registrars so I do believe that this information is relevant to the project and could be made available to the public. Thanks Roger From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 9:34 AM To: Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Roger, that data would be useful, of course, and should be published, but by itself it would provide no incentive to registrars to accelerate compliance. Percentages of transitioned domains by registrar would be needed. Steve 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 Roger D Carney Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:25 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, Maybe there is a middle ground here, where we can be transparent without creating targets. What if Verisign just published an overall progress status: number of domains at the beginning of transition, number of domain creates since transition began, number of domain deletes since transition, number of domains with contacts, and percent complete? Thanks Roger From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 AM To: 'theo geurts' <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>>; Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com<mailto:rcarney@godaddy.com>>; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo's e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. [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: theo geurts [mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote: I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically. [image001] 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> [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression. The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick. Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. Thanks Roger 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: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Dear IRT Members, As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others . To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions: * Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ? Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic. Best Regards Fabien From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl<mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl>> Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 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: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote: Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week's meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- Fabien Betremieux Sr. Registry Services & Engagement Manager Global Domains Division, ICANN _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

I find this fair - gives plenty of information and no names / quantities are used. Kind regards, Chris From: "Roger D Carney" <rcarney@godaddy.com> To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Thursday, 11 August, 2016 15:25:03 Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, Maybe there is a middle ground here, where we can be transparent without creating targets. What if Verisign just published an overall progress status: number of domains at the beginning of transition, number of domain creates since transition began, number of domain deletes since transition, number of domains with contacts, and percent complete? Thanks Roger From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:46 AM To: 'theo geurts' <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Why would we want these numbers [or at least percentages] to be public? I can think of three reasons. First, and most relevant to the question of incentives, Theo’s e-mail demonstrates that making the percentages public provides an incentive for accelerating implementation. The higher the percentage, the less the risk of the click-bait scenario being directed against your registrar business. Second, outside the bubble of this IRT, there are people wondering why thick Whois seems to have disappeared into a black hole more than 2.5 years after the Board unanimously adopted the consensus policy, and whether the vaunted multi-stakeholder process can really deliver results. Providing a publicly accessible and understandable metric could help to restore some of the credibility ICANN and its contracted parties have lost in this process. Third, good old fashioned accountability and transparency. I thought those were supposed to be the watchwords of the way ICANN operates. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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: theo geurts [ mailto:gtheo@xs4all.nl ] Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:51 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; 'Roger D Carney'; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I agree with Roger. I am not sure if I agree with Steve. The suggestion bout the progress expressed in percentages is fine, but why would we want these numbers be public? Beside some domain bloggers creating click-bait headlines, like :"will registrar X make the deadline or will they be de-accredited? Transfer your domains now!". I currently do not see why they should be made public, though I am open input. Thanks, Theo On 10-8-2016 20:06, Metalitz, Steven wrote: I agree with Roger that weekly and consolidated reporting would be a good idea. Would it be feasible to also provide as a denominator the total number of registrations sponsored by that registrar in the registries in question, so that progress could be expressed in percentage terms? These numbers should also be made public periodically. Steven J. Metalitz | Partner, through his professional corporation T: 202.355.7902 | met@msk.com Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP | 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 Roger D Carney Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:24 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Good Morning, The migration data path should be left to the registrars discretion and not necessarily based on renewal dates. I would propose that starting at the beginning of the transition, Verisign can provide a weekly list of thin registrations to each registrar (and possibly ICANN) of domains that do not have contacts assigned and maybe a consolidated report showing Registrar progression. The reduced validation rules need to apply until all registrations are thick. Post transition, if domain has no ROIDs the domain is auto-deleted at the domain expiration date automatically by the Registry. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. Thanks Roger From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org ] On Behalf Of Fabien Betremieux Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:47 PM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Dear IRT Members, As Staff is working on drafting the implementation plan, including potential measures that could be implemented or suggested to facilitate and encourage Registrars to complete the migration of registration data from thin to thick, we would like to pick IRT members brains about the type of measures they believe would or would not be effective for themselves and others . To date, several ideas have been floated in IRT discussions: * Using renewal date of a registration as a pacing mechanism to migrate registration data * Setting up financial incentives plans similar to what some ccTLDs have done to promote the adoption of DNSSEC * Not replicating the migration in batch implemented during the migration of .ORG from thin to thick Can you think of other effective (or non effective) measures ? Thanks in advance for your discussion of this topic. Best Regards Fabien From: < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org > on behalf of theo geurts < gtheo@xs4all.nl > Date: Monday, June 20, 2016 at 5:32 PM To: " gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org " < gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Updated Scorecard of Transition Implementation Path Discussions Thanks. Fabien, I think it is wise that the comment from Steve Metalitz on the last call is also reflected in 7B. That once the PDP is sent to the Registrars with an effective date becomes an obligation for Registrars to comply with. This itself does not solve the issue, but it does raise the question how ICANN Compliance is gonna deal with this and how it could possibly affect the timeline. The dynamics being different compared to .ORG. Let me explain my thinking here. Assume in a worst case scenario that we are passed the end date of the migration (18 months). The end result is 200 Registrars did not migrate the data. Compliance kicks in. They need to deal with 200 Registrars mediation is 6 months(complete guess). Total migration time 24 months. Do we need to factor this in? Does it add anything? How compliance will deal with this is outside the scope of the IRT in my opinion. Though Maguy and her team might want to start thinking about this. Best, Theo Geurts On 20-6-2016 16:36, Fabien Betremieux wrote: BQ_BEGIN Dear IRT Members, In advance of our meeting planned tomorrow, please find attached our updated scorecard (in clean and redline versions) per discussion in last week’s meeting and over the mailing list since then. We will use the clean version to guide our discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, please let me know if you would like to propose edits to the scorecard. Thank you for your attention -- 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt BQ_END _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt

+1. Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com) with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:22 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Hi I cannot see a single valid reason why any form of unnecessary "naming and shaming" relating to a work-in-progress could benefit anyone - verisign producing a X% completed report is fine, but no details need to be "public" relating to any individual registrar. If the deadlines are not met, that'll be a compliance issue, and public at that point If the deadline has not yet been reached, there is no benefit to providing fuel for a fire that din't need to be lit and serves no useful purpose The Registrant (ultimately the only party that matters) isn't asking for this policy, isn't (obviously) benefited by the policy, and publicising sensitive corporate data about their chosen registrar could well be seen as doing demnstrable harm Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ 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 Steve that we should look at incentives to move the transition of domain name registrations to the Thick Whois. And I agree that relying on compliance to enforce after 18 months is not acceptable due to the compliance team’s collaborative actions with registrars, simple issues take much longer than they need to take, this could push the timeline much farther down the road. What if ICANN stepped forward and offered a monetary incentive to move the registrations to Thick Whois within a much shorter time frame? A small reduction in fees for example. I am sure there are other positive incentives that we could come up with but if not transparency is always valuable to the ICANN community as a whole. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM To: 'Jody Kolker' <jkolker@godaddy.com<mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com>>, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Let’s remember why we are having this conversation. Thick Whois is a consensus policy. And the registrars, through this implementation process, are giving themselves eighteen months (from the date the registry production system opens – a year from now) to achieve compliance with that policy. I agree that at that point (February 2019 under the current timetable), failure to provide the required data to the registry will be a matter of contract compliance under the RAA (though I would contest that it becomes “public at that point”). The question we are discussing is whether there are any incentives that can be created so that registrars will provide the required data to the registry within a period of less than 18 months. Incentives can be positive or negative. Making public the extent to which each registrar is providing the required data on existing registrations, at some point during the 18-month period, certainly could provide some incentive. The reaction below (and others on this thread) demonstrate pretty clearly that a registrar would not wish to appear on a public list that shows a relatively low percentage of registrations for which the data has been provided to the registry. I would call that an incentive for the registrar to move faster toward full achievement of thick Whois than it might otherwise do. That is how a negative incentive works --- if you don’t do X, then you suffer some detriment. In this case that detriment takes the form, to use Rob’s term, of “naming and shaming.” It does not take the form of contract compliance action, because that does not apply until the 18 months have elapsed. I agree it may be of no immediate value to the registrar to have this information made public. Value to the registrar is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether making this information public will give registrars an incentive to come into compliance faster than they are required to do (under the deadline they have set for themselves through this group). Accelerated compliance would benefit the credibility of ICANN and of the multi-stakeholder model, both of which are losing credibility the longer this implementation process drags on. It could benefit competition, which is another way of saying it could benefit those registrars who move relatively faster toward thick Whois. It would benefit transparency. And it would benefit the public (ultimately it was the benefit to the public that motivated ICANN to adopt this consensus policy in the first place). But no, it would not benefit the registrar that is simply aiming for compliance at the end of 18 months. What I am drawing from this thread is that the registrars in this group do not want to see any incentives provided for them to do their jobs faster than the 18 months they have decided on as the deadline for doing the job. This is disappointing but certainly not surprising. It is a perfectly legitimate position for registrars to take based on their own self-interest, but it gives short shrift to the other interests noted above, including competition, transparency, and the credibility of the multi-stakeholder model. I would certainly welcome any other suggestions for incentives – positive or negative – to encourage registrars to complete their role in achieving thick Whois in less than 18 months. Steve Metalitz 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 Jody Kolker Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 6:51 AM To: Rob Golding; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick +1. Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com<mailto:cbeadnall@godaddy.com>) with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- 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 Rob Golding Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:22 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org<mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick Hi I cannot see a single valid reason why any form of unnecessary "naming and shaming" relating to a work-in-progress could benefit anyone - verisign producing a X% completed report is fine, but no details need to be "public" relating to any individual registrar. If the deadlines are not met, that'll be a compliance issue, and public at that point If the deadline has not yet been reached, there is no benefit to providing fuel for a fire that din't need to be lit and serves no useful purpose The Registrant (ultimately the only party that matters) isn't asking for this policy, isn't (obviously) benefited by the policy, and publicising sensitive corporate data about their chosen registrar could well be seen as doing demnstrable harm Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com<mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com> Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR * domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dimpl-2Dthickwhois-2Drt&d=DQMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=-USHOFzkn_GygoRPoPSoTapiWOHSoOMj4og5OViLRtY&s=Ok10sW4YZh3-Hb9Rp3Pe4yskamjBOP8LWvUEOC9VyLI&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dimpl-2Dthickwhois-2Drt&d=DQMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=-USHOFzkn_GygoRPoPSoTapiWOHSoOMj4og5OViLRtY&s=Ok10sW4YZh3-Hb9Rp3Pe4yskamjBOP8LWvUEOC9VyLI&e=>

So I joined this IRT, I guess December last year. I agree this one has/is taken a long time for reasons I do not know. I was not part of the WG, so I do not carry much history. The last few months we made a lot of progress I think. We set a time line based on several factors and I happen to think I been driving and pushing this one with several other Registrars. Amount of connections, speed of connections, size of Registrar, that not every Registrar is aware and a ton of other reasons, including Registrars to do their own legal analysis to see if they can migrate the data. I understand as Steve rightfully pointed out, that this one took way to long. My first thought is how can we prevent this in the future. What I do not understand is why we want to speed things up. With so many delays we are facing new realities. I think Steve DelBianco made some good pointers during the Helsinki meeting. Personally I feel like I am dealing with some old decision made in 2012 and now it is 2016 and we are facing issues and the IRT can clean it up. Wich is okay, and it is not that the system is broken or anything, but what do we gain from speeding things up, it is like I am missing something here? Why do we want to shower Registrars with money who migrate the first week? What do we gain as a community? Thanks Theo Geurts On 16-8-2016 20:35, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

I agree with Steve that we should look at incentives to move the transition of domain name registrations to the Thick Whois. And I agree that relying on compliance to enforce after 18 months is not acceptable due to the compliance team’s collaborative actions with registrars, simple issues take much longer than they need to take, this could push the timeline much farther down the road.

What if ICANN stepped forward and offered a monetary incentive to move the registrations to Thick Whois within a much shorter time frame? A small reduction in fees for example.

I am sure there are other positive incentives that we could come up with but if not transparency is always valuable to the ICANN community as a whole. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

From: <gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Steven Metalitz <met@msk.com <mailto:met@msk.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM To: 'Jody Kolker' <jkolker@godaddy.com <mailto:jkolker@godaddy.com>>, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com>>, "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: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Let’s remember why we are having this conversation.

Thick Whois is a consensus policy. And the registrars, through this implementation process, are giving themselves eighteen months (from the date the registry production system opens – a year from now) to achieve compliance with that policy. I agree that at that point (February 2019 under the current timetable), failure to provide the required data to the registry will be a matter of contract compliance under the RAA (though I would contest that it becomes “public at that point”).

The question we are discussing is whether there are any incentives that can be created so that registrars will provide the required data to the registry within a period of less than 18 months. Incentives can be positive or negative. Making public the extent to which each registrar is providing the required data on existing registrations, at some point during the 18-month period, certainly could provide some incentive. The reaction below (and others on this thread) demonstrate pretty clearly that a registrar would not wish to appear on a public list that shows a relatively low percentage of registrations for which the data has been provided to the registry. I would call that an incentive for the registrar to move faster toward full achievement of thick Whois than it might otherwise do. That is how a negative incentive works --- if you don’t do X, then you suffer some detriment. In this case that detriment takes the form, to use Rob’s term, of “naming and shaming.” It does not take the form of contract compliance action, because that does not apply until the 18 months have elapsed.

I agree it may be of no immediate value to the registrar to have this information made public. Value to the registrar is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about whether making this information public will give registrars an incentive to come into compliance faster than they are required to do (under the deadline they have set for themselves through this group). Accelerated compliance would benefit the credibility of ICANN and of the multi-stakeholder model, both of which are losing credibility the longer this implementation process drags on. It could benefit competition, which is another way of saying it could benefit those registrars who move relatively faster toward thick Whois. It would benefit transparency. And it would benefit the public (ultimately it was the benefit to the public that motivated ICANN to adopt this consensus policy in the first place). But no, it would not benefit the registrar that is simply aiming for compliance at the end of 18 months.

What I am drawing from this thread is that the registrars in this group do not want to see any incentives provided for them to do their jobs faster than the 18 months they have decided on as the deadline for doing the job. This is disappointing but certainly not surprising. It is a perfectly legitimate position for registrars to take based on their own self-interest, but it gives short shrift to the other interests noted above, including competition, transparency, and the credibility of the multi-stakeholder model.

I would certainly welcome any other suggestions for incentives – positive or negative – to encourage registrars to complete their role in achieving thick Whois in less than 18 months.

Steve Metalitz

**

*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 *Jody Kolker *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2016 6:51 AM *To:* Rob Golding; gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

+1.

Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadnall@godaddy.com <mailto:cbeadnall@godaddy.com>) with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

-----Original Message----- 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 Rob Golding Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 5:22 AM To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org <mailto:gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick

Hi

I cannot see a single valid reason why any form of unnecessary "naming and shaming" relating to a work-in-progress could benefit anyone - verisign producing a X% completed report is fine, but no details need to be "public" relating to any individual registrar.

If the deadlines are not met, that'll be a compliance issue, and public at that point

If the deadline has not yet been reached, there is no benefit to providing fuel for a fire that din't need to be lit and serves no useful purpose

The Registrant (ultimately the only party that matters) isn't asking for this policy, isn't (obviously) benefited by the policy, and publicising sensitive corporate data about their chosen registrar could well be seen as doing demnstrable harm

Rob -- Rob Golding rob.golding@astutium.com <mailto:rob.golding@astutium.com> Astutium Ltd, Number One Poultry, London. EC2R 8JR

* domains * hosting * vps * servers * cloud * backups * _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>

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

I am very much opposed to this last point.

Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations.

There may be endless numbers of reasons why a registrar may have a number of legacy domains with bad or missing data that cannot be transitioned if data quality rules prevent that. These may include system error, domains registered due to registry timeouts, domains accepted as bulk transfer from terminated registrar, etc. Threatening a registrar with termination based on this is entirely unreasonable. The proposed solution should rather be that the registry must also accept domains with bad data as-is and not perform validity checks. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

I don't even think that is part of the deaccreditation criteria in the RAA. The registry can post a deadline for stopping a registrar's transactions if the registrar has not completed the migration. And that should put enough pressure for the registrar to expedite their migration. I do not know how other registrars take care of the incoming transfers. Our program always check with the registries' whois first, and if it can not find the whois data, it will go to the sponsoring registrar's whois. And most of the time it works well. Joyce ----- Original Message ----- From: Volker Greimann To: gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt] Open Item 7b - Coordination/Incentive for Registrars Migration to Thick I am very much opposed to this last point. Post transition completion date, ICANN will revoke your Registrar Accreditation 90 days after transition if you are not making noticeable progress on remaining thin registrations. There may be endless numbers of reasons why a registrar may have a number of legacy domains with bad or missing data that cannot be transitioned if data quality rules prevent that. These may include system error, domains registered due to registry timeouts, domains accepted as bulk transfer from terminated registrar, etc. Threatening a registrar with termination based on this is entirely unreasonable. The proposed solution should rather be that the registry must also accept domains with bad data as-is and not perform validity checks. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt mailing list Gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-impl-thickwhois-rt