Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document
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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing>, adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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
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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing>*, adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> **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
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. [image: Logo] 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 <https://www.cloudhq.net/meeting/G0vOhHMQkV7rGgdCWt1>]* 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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing>*, adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> **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
Dear TPR WG members, As a reminder, please be sure to contribute Rationale to the CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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. [Image removed by sender. Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 WORLD TRADEMARK REVIEW "WTR 1000" Top Global TM Counsel 2012 to present [Book a Meeting [cloudhq.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.cloudhq.net/meeting/G0vOhHMQkV7rGgdCWt1__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbBAdzy2s$>] On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:10 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello all, I have provided some suggestions in the Rational Document chart. I think that my suggestions capture the WG's general sentiments as to why we've made these recommendations, but of course further updates/input/etc are encouraged. I hope this is helpful. Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> On 2024-02-16 5:12 p.m., Christian Wheeler wrote: Dear TPR WG members, In lieu of the WG call on 20 February (which has been cancelled), all members are tasked to complete the WG’s standing Action Item: to submit Rationale for the WG’s preliminary recommendations. Support staff have updated the existing Rationale Document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$>, 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> to redline/refine the WG’s preliminary recommendations as necessary, and provide rationale for why the WG is proposing these recommendations. NOTE: It is these materials that will be used to set the stage for the WG’s ICANN79 sessions, so it is important we have this well-grounded. Similar to the TPR session at ICANN77 in DC, the leadership team will be seeking volunteers to speak to blocks of the preliminary recommendations. Please feel free to note your interest now as a side-bar comment. All WG members are expected to contribute substantive rationale to this document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> 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<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr _______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
Dear TPR WG members, This is your Final Reminder to contribute Rationale to the CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> Google Doc before tomorrow’s WG call. We will be reviewing this document tomorrow, so please ensure you contribute your rationale for why these recommendations are being proposed by the WG (e.g. prelim recs 1.3 and 2.1), as this will be vital preparation for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 1. If, once you have provided rationale, you would like to get a head-start on the topic of discussion for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 2, then we encourage WG members to review the following materials: * Recap of Group 1a Prelim Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13mXowHmsGf3c17aaTAGdL6LTCvTiIIC7M5xO_MA6fcI/edit?usp=sharing> (slides 22 and 37) * 17 January 2023 call recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/M9Q6l-3ucT4SL0OiDJ0zQc9EmlMzB84MywmdUKDQqgAqglMNFztxEGAqiGIPLFzkXcRDbHgD7papQS3J.4wrRUwXfOAzd2nqW> or transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/transcript/transcript-gnso-tpr-pdp-wg-17jan23-en.pdf> * Group 1a Small Group’s proposed Exemption to Rec 17<https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-01-17+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call?preview=/222268447/228786456/DraftRevisionstoPreliminaryRecommendation16and17v2-0001%5B1%5D.docx> (for “Established Relationships”) Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all tomorrow at 16:00 UTC. Kind regards, Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Christian From: Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 11:35 AM To: "gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-TPR] Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document Dear TPR WG members, As a reminder, please be sure to contribute Rationale to the CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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. [Image removed by sender. Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com> phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 WORLD TRADEMARK REVIEW "WTR 1000" Top Global TM Counsel 2012 to present [Book a Meeting [cloudhq.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.cloudhq.net/meeting/G0vOhHMQkV7rGgdCWt1__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbBAdzy2s$>] On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:10 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>> wrote: Hello all, I have provided some suggestions in the Rational Document chart. I think that my suggestions capture the WG's general sentiments as to why we've made these recommendations, but of course further updates/input/etc are encouraged. I hope this is helpful. Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> On 2024-02-16 5:12 p.m., Christian Wheeler wrote: Dear TPR WG members, In lieu of the WG call on 20 February (which has been cancelled), all members are tasked to complete the WG’s standing Action Item: to submit Rationale for the WG’s preliminary recommendations. Support staff have updated the existing Rationale Document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$>, 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> to redline/refine the WG’s preliminary recommendations as necessary, and provide rationale for why the WG is proposing these recommendations. NOTE: It is these materials that will be used to set the stage for the WG’s ICANN79 sessions, so it is important we have this well-grounded. Similar to the TPR session at ICANN77 in DC, the leadership team will be seeking volunteers to speak to blocks of the preliminary recommendations. Please feel free to note your interest now as a side-bar comment. All WG members are expected to contribute substantive rationale to this document [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> 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<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr _______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
Hey folks, Not sure how everyone's focus is. Mine is super limited. it is either weighing in on a rationale or letting criminals get away with their crimes, that is where we are at in the current time frame for me. So we might want to focus on this tomorrow or during ICANN 79. While I think this is vital for the final report, I do not agree it is vital for ICANN 79. ICANN 79 is just a snapshot. And when it comes to buy-in for the final report, that requires a ton more. Another alternative is that the RrSG takes a drafting stab at this. Sure we can do that, but given the buy-in issue, I rather draft the rationale tomorrow as a group effort. Theo On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, at 7:40 PM, Christian Wheeler wrote:
Dear TPR WG members,
This is your *Final Reminder to contribute Rationale* to the *CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> *Google Doc before tomorrow’s WG call. We will be reviewing this document tomorrow, so please ensure you contribute your rationale for *why *these recommendations are being proposed by the WG (e.g. prelim recs 1.3 and 2.1), as this will be vital preparation for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 1.
If, once you have provided rationale, you would like to get a head-start on the topic of discussion for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 2, then we encourage WG members to review the following materials: • Recap of Group 1a Prelim Recommendations <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13mXowHmsGf3c17aaTAGdL6LTCvTiIIC7M5xO_MA6fcI/edit?usp=sharing> (slides 22 and 37) • 17 January 2023 call recording <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/M9Q6l-3ucT4SL0OiDJ0zQc9EmlMzB84MywmdUKDQqgAqglMNFztxEGAqiGIPLFzkXcRDbHgD7papQS3J.4wrRUwXfOAzd2nqW> or transcript <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/transcript/transcript-gnso-tpr-pdp-wg-17jan23-en.pdf> • Group 1a Small Group’s proposed Exemption to Rec 17 <https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-01-17+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call?preview=/222268447/228786456/DraftRevisionstoPreliminaryRecommendation16and17v2-0001%5B1%5D.docx> (for “Established Relationships”)
Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all tomorrow at 16:00 UTC.
Kind regards, Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Christian
*From: *Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 11:35 AM *To: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-TPR] Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document
Dear TPR WG members,
As a reminder, please be sure to contribute *Rationale* to the *CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> *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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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.
Image removed by sender. Logo
*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 [cloudhq.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.cloudhq.net/meeting/G0vOhHMQkV7rGgdCWt1__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbBAdzy2s$>]*
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:10 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I have provided some suggestions in the Rational Document chart. I think that my suggestions capture the WG's general sentiments as to why we've made these recommendations, but of course further updates/input/etc are encouraged. I hope this is helpful.
*Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E*
Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they
swyld@tucows.com
On 2024-02-16 5:12 p.m., Christian Wheeler wrote:
Dear TPR WG members,
In lieu of the WG call on 20 February (which has been cancelled), all members are tasked to complete the WG’s standing *Action Item: to* *submit Rationale for the WG’s preliminary recommendations*.
Support staff have updated the existing *Rationale Document [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$>*, 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> to redline/refine the WG’s preliminary recommendations *as necessary*, and provide rationale for why the WG is proposing these recommendations.
NOTE: It is these materials that will be used to set the stage for the WG’s ICANN79 sessions, so it is important we have this well-grounded. Similar to the TPR session at ICANN77 in DC, the leadership team will be seeking volunteers to speak to blocks of the preliminary recommendations. Please feel free to note your interest now as a side-bar comment.
*All WG members are expected to contribute substantive rationale to this document [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> 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
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
Hi all, Though I'm not involved in catching criminals like some of our members, I'm definitely in pre-79 mode. I'll be at our meeting tomorrow but can't put any other time into working on this rationale or other WG needs until after the ICANN meetings. Thanks, *Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E* Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-02-26 3:43 p.m., Theo Geurts wrote:
Hey folks,
Not sure how everyone's focus is.
Mine is super limited. it is either weighing in on a rationale or letting criminals get away with their crimes, that is where we are at in the current time frame for me. So we might want to focus on this tomorrow or during ICANN 79.
While I think this is vital for the final report, I do not agree it is vital for ICANN 79. ICANN 79 is just a snapshot. And when it comes to buy-in for the final report, that requires a ton more.
Another alternative is that the RrSG takes a drafting stab at this. Sure we can do that, but given the buy-in issue, I rather draft the rationale tomorrow as a group effort.
Theo
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024, at 7:40 PM, Christian Wheeler wrote:
DearTPR WG members,
This is your *Final Reminder to contribute Rationale*to the *CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> *Google Doc before tomorrow’s WG call. We will be reviewing this document tomorrow, so please ensure you contribute your rationale for /why /these recommendations are being proposed by the WG (e.g. prelim recs 1.3 and 2.1), as this will be vital preparation for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 1.
If, once you have provided rationale, you would like to get a head-start on the topic of discussion for ICANN79 TPR WG Session 2, then we encourage WG members to review the following materials:
* Recap of Group 1a Prelim Recommendations <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13mXowHmsGf3c17aaTAGdL6LTCvTiIIC7M5xO_MA6fcI/edit?usp=sharing> (slides 22 and 37) * 17 January 2023 call recording <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/M9Q6l-3ucT4SL0OiDJ0zQc9EmlMzB84MywmdUKDQqgAqglMNFztxEGAqiGIPLFzkXcRDbHgD7papQS3J.4wrRUwXfOAzd2nqW> or transcript <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/transcript/transcript-gnso-tpr-pdp-wg-17jan23-en.pdf> * Group 1a Small Group’s proposed Exemption to Rec 17 <https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-01-17+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call?preview=/222268447/228786456/DraftRevisionstoPreliminaryRecommendation16and17v2-0001%5B1%5D.docx> (for “Established Relationships”)
Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all tomorrow at 16:00 UTC.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Berry, Julie, and Christian
*From: *Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 11:35 AM *To: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-TPR] Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document
Dear TPR WG members,
As a reminder, please be sure to contribute *Rationale* to the *CORD Preliminary Recommendations + Rationale <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> *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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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.
Image removed by sender. Logo
*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 [cloudhq.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.cloudhq.net/meeting/G0vOhHMQkV7rGgdCWt1__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbBAdzy2s$>]*
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:10 AM Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> wrote:
Hello all,
I have provided some suggestions in the Rational Document chart. I think that my suggestions capture the WG's general sentiments as to why we've made these recommendations, but of course further updates/input/etc are encouraged. I hope this is helpful.
*Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E*
Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they
swyld@tucows.com
On 2024-02-16 5:12 p.m., Christian Wheeler wrote:
Dear TPR WG members,
In lieu of the WG call on 20 February (which has been cancelled), all members are tasked to complete the WG’s standing *Action Item: to* *submit Rationale for the WG’s preliminary recommendations*.
Support staff have updated the existing *Rationale Document [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$>*, 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> to redline/refine the WG’s preliminary recommendations /as necessary/, and provide rationale for why the WG is proposing these recommendations.
NOTE: It is these materials that will be used to set the stage for the WG’s ICANN79 sessions, so it is important we have this well-grounded. Similar to the TPR session at ICANN77 in DC, the leadership team will be seeking volunteers to speak to blocks of the preliminary recommendations. Please feel free to note your interest now as a side-bar comment.
*All WG members are expected to contribute substantive rationale to this document [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!-bcpbQ0zvgrjY55qOK0nK1Umi6DDceZn0NH8SQmKFBaHgj_Uw07knT4RxrWC1gEuZxUNPvbErj0IxOGDODzbMpxLHIw$> 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Christian, Is it possible to change the access to the Google doc making it visible for all with the link to document? I want to distribute the link to the Google doc to the CPWG email list for view only. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød At-Large From: GNSO-TPR <gnso-tpr-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Christian Wheeler <christian.wheeler@icann.org> Date: Friday, 16 February 2024 at 23:13 To: gnso-tpr@icann.org <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-TPR] Action Item: Prelim Recs + Rationale Document 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing>, adding the WG’s preliminary CORD recommendations (with red text indicating updated language following the 13 Feb call). Please use this document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DpDO2BYTl6TA7ApfPpG3Hpl13nrv4y4x9B3hImrx_Fc/edit?usp=sharing> 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
participants (5)
-
Christian Wheeler -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Sarah Wyld -
Steinar Grøtterød -
Theo Geurts