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.

	Mike Rodenbaugh
	address:	548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104
	email:	mike@rodenbaugh.com
	phone:	+1 (415) 738-8087

WORLD TRADEMARK REVIEW "WTR 1000" Top Global TM Counsel

2012 to present [Book a Meeting]

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.com

On 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, adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document 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 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 list
GNSO-TPR@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
_______________________________________________
GNSO-TPR mailing list
GNSO-TPR@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr