Dear TPR WG members,
As a reminder, please be sure to contribute
Rationale to the CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale
Google Doc before the WG’s next meeting on Tuesday, 27 February. When the WG presents these preliminary recommendations during the ICANN79 session(s), this Rationale will be key to informing audiences and ensuring they understand
why these recommendations are being proposed.
When drafting rationale, please also consider how it can address any anticipated concerns or public comments. If some recommendations require clarification or shoring up, such as prelim recs 1.3 and 2.1 as Mike highlighted, then these are a good place to start
providing substantive and convincing rationale. If you feel any prelim recs require updating, please suggest updated language in the Google Doc and we will review it during our next call.
Thank you to those WG members who have provided input already, and we look forward to seeing more WG rationale this week. We are also still looking for volunteers to present these prelim recs during the ICANN79 session(s), so please reach out if you are interested.
The
CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale Google Doc has been updated to provide View Only access to those with the link (noting, however, that suggested redlines will not be visible and so making a copy and/or PDF of the Google Doc may be best for outside
sharing). Thank you!
Kind regards,
Christian, Caitlin, Berry, and Julie
From:
GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 9:54 AM
To: "gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GNSO-TPR] Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document
I would like to see some substantive rationale for 1.3. It seems to me it would be a very Material Change requiring notification when the
entire record is in fact changed to/from RNH data to/from Registrar data.
Also 2.1 needs further explanation as to how the Designated Agent "is not used as expected" and "is not fit for purpose". We all know that is a concept embedded in many domain name registration agreements today. If we are removing the
60-day lock and requiring notice, it seems to me that registrars should still be able to contractually act as a Designated Agent (at least for some purposes, like authorizing a transfer where an RNH has agreed to sell their name at auction) if/when their customers
allow them to do so. I do agree that Designated Agent should not be allowed to opt the RNH out of notifications. But I think there could be chaos if this concept is simply not allowed for any purpose going forward.
WORLD TRADEMARK REVIEW "WTR 1000" Top Global TM Counsel
2012 to present [Book
a Meeting [cloudhq.net]]
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:10 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I have provided some suggestions in the Rational Document chart. I think that my suggestions capture the WG's general sentiments as to why we've made these recommendations, but of course further updates/input/etc are encouraged. I hope this is helpful.
Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E
Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they
swyld@tucows.comOn 2024-02-16 5:12 p.m., Christian Wheeler wrote:
Dear TPR WG members,
In lieu of the WG call on 20 February (which has been cancelled), all members are tasked to complete the WG’s standing Action Item: to submit Rationale for the WG’s preliminary recommendations.
Support staff have updated the existing Rationale Document [docs.google.com], adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document [docs.google.com] to redline/refine the WG’s preliminary recommendations as necessary, and provide rationale for why the WG is proposing these recommendations.
NOTE: It is these materials that will be used to set the stage for the WG’s ICANN79 sessions, so it is important we have this well-grounded. Similar to the TPR session at ICANN77 in DC, the leadership team will be seeking volunteers to speak to blocks of the preliminary recommendations. Please feel free to note your interest now as a side-bar comment.
All WG members are expected to contribute substantive rationale to this document [docs.google.com] by EOD, 27 February.
NOTE: If input is not received by the deadline, as a last resort, staff will extract attributed statements from prior transcripts and meeting notes.
Thank you all, and we look forward to reviewing your inputs during our next call, scheduled for 27 February at 16:00 UTC. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out on the list or leave a comment in the document.
Best regards,
Christian, Caitlin, Berry, and Julie
_______________________________________________GNSO-TPR mailing listGNSO-TPR@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr_______________________________________________
GNSO-TPR mailing list
GNSO-TPR@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr