For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Dear working group members, As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes: * New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. * Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. * Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. * Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope. Please make sure to review the following, with a particular focus on edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are highlighted in yellow. * Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * Annex D (pages 58-63) Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now. Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, please enter them here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0tiD5V_PE4zxnIKfD46esX6EtHeO...>. For each item, please include: * Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). * Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. * Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. * Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited. The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process. Kind regards, Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand? [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0tiD5V_PE4zxnIKfD46esX6EtHeO...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
Hi Mike, Thanks for the questions. IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar. Kind regards, Emily From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand? [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 On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote: Dear working group members, As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes: * New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. * Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. * Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. * Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope. Please make sure to review the following, with a particular focus on edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are highlighted in yellow. * Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * Annex D (pages 58-63) Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now. Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, please enter them here [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. For each item, please include: * Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). * Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. * Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. * Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited. The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process. Kind regards, Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily Emily Barabas Policy Development Support Senior Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-TPR@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID. Steve On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
[image: 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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Steve, good point. I guess those registrars and their resellers will have to sort out that inevitable confusion. Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated. [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID.
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
[image: 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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Why can't the TPR WG require something more forthcoming for the registrants? Steve On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve, good point. I guess those registrars and their resellers will have to sort out that inevitable confusion.
Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated.
[image: Logo]
Mike Rodenbaugh
address:
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
email:
mike@rodenbaugh.com
phone:
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID.
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
[image: 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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
It seems much to ask the Losing Registrar to figure out who the Gaining Registrar's reseller is. It might help a bit if Losing Registrars are required to name the Gaining Registrar, since it is always available at the ICANN site they are providing a link to. But that won't help when the transfer is initiated by a reseller. Nobody knows that except the reseller and the Gaining Registrar, and perhaps a very few very savvy registrants. [image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087 On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:44 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Why can't the TPR WG require something more forthcoming for the registrants?
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve, good point. I guess those registrars and their resellers will have to sort out that inevitable confusion.
Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated.
[image: Logo]
Mike Rodenbaugh
address:
548 Market Street, Box 55819
San Francisco, CA 94104
email:
mike@rodenbaugh.com
phone:
+1 (415) 738-8087
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID.
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
[image: 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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Another concern is that some registrars have many thousands of reseller, and then sometimes 1-2 levels more of resellers below that. Being able to design a system where the entity name that is known to the registrant can be 100% properly identified is impractical (if not impossible).
On Feb 15, 2023, at 12:51, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. It seems much to ask the Losing Registrar to figure out who the Gaining Registrar's reseller is. It might help a bit if Losing Registrars are required to name the Gaining Registrar, since it is always available at the ICANN site they are providing a link to. But that won't help when the transfer is initiated by a reseller. Nobody knows that except the reseller and the Gaining Registrar, and perhaps a very few very savvy registrants.
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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:44 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote:
Why can't the TPR WG require something more forthcoming for the registrants?
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
Thanks Steve, good point. I guess those registrars and their resellers will have to sort out that inevitable confusion.
Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated.
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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>> wrote:
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID.
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> Date: Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 To: Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-tpr@icann.org <mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>" <gnso-tpr@icann.org <mailto:gnso-tpr@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org <mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
Please make sure to review the following, with a particular focus on edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are highlighted in yellow. Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) Annex D (pages 58-63) Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. For each item, please include:
Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ 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
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. ********************
_______________________________________________ GNSO-TPR mailing list GNSO-TPR@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-tpr
I think on the registrar side, we discussed the issue raised by Steve and concluded that the benefit for including the IANA ID, even if it caused confusion among some registrants, outweighed the downsides of that confusion. Of course, we could be wrong about that calculus, but it seems reasonable enough, particularly because, as Owen points out, it's basically impossible to have a foolproof system for identifying resellers. Catherine *Catherine Merdinger **| *Corporate Counsel *| Identity Digital *Inc. *|* +1.319.541.9416 *| *she/her On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 1:04 PM Owen Smigelski via GNSO-TPR < gnso-tpr@icann.org> wrote:
Another concern is that some registrars have many thousands of reseller, and then sometimes 1-2 levels more of resellers below that. Being able to design a system where the entity name that is known to the registrant can be 100% properly identified is impractical (if not impossible).
On Feb 15, 2023, at 12:51, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
*CAUTION: **This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.* It seems much to ask the Losing Registrar to figure out who the Gaining Registrar's reseller is. It might help a bit if Losing Registrars are required to name the Gaining Registrar, since it is always available at the ICANN site they are providing a link to. But that won't help when the transfer is initiated by a reseller. Nobody knows that except the reseller and the Gaining Registrar, and perhaps a very few very savvy registrants.
[image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:44 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
Why can't the TPR WG require something more forthcoming for the registrants?
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:42 PM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Thanks Steve, good point. I guess those registrars and their resellers will have to sort out that inevitable confusion.
Thanks Emily for the quick and helpful response, much appreciated.
[image: Logo] Mike Rodenbaugh address: 548 Market Street, Box 55819 San Francisco, CA 94104 email: mike@rodenbaugh.com phone: +1 (415) 738-8087
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:25 PM Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com> wrote:
I have had it pointed out to me that registrants registered through resellers may not know or recognize even the name of the registrar, much less the IANA ID.
Steve
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:23 PM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the questions.
IANA IDs are not defined in the Transfer Policy; this is a unique ID assigned to registrar when it becomes accredited with ICANN org. The list of IANA IDs is managed on this page: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xhtml
The working group has acknowledged that the IANA ID alone may not be meaningful to registrants. The current recommendations state that when the Losing Registrar includes the IANA ID in the Transfer Confirmation and the Notification of Transfer Completion, it also includes "a link to ICANN-maintained webpage listing accredited Registrars and corresponding IANA IDs. If available, the name of the Gaining Registrar(s) may also be included." The expectation is that this will assist the Registrant in identifying the registrar.
Kind regards,
Emily
*From: *Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:52 *To: *Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-tpr@icann.org" <gnso-tpr@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [GNSO-TPR] For Review: Latest Redline of Phase 1A Initial Report & Recommendations
Thanks Emily. I have one hopefully quick question. Is IANA ID defined anywhere in the Policy? Does it include the name of the Gaining Registrar rather than merely a number that few people would understand?
[image: 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
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:43 AM Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:
Dear working group members,
As discussed on our recent calls, staff had an action item to provide an updated redline revision of the Phase 1A Initial Report to the working group for review. The updated redline is attached and includes:
- New edits supported by the working group after reviewing public comments and considering small group outputs. - Updated responses to charter questions and rationales to more fully provide context and reasoning for the WG’s recommendations. - Updates for consistency in terminology, the way that timeframes are referenced, etc. - Discussion of items that the NCSG and SSAC asked the working group to consider, but that the working group determined were out of scope.
*Please make sure to review the following*, *with a particular focus on **edits that are new since the 21 December redline. New edits are **highlighted in yellow.*
- *Section 3 of the report (pages 11-50) * - *Annex D (pages 58-63)*
Highlights in blue are to assist staff in tracking areas of the report that will need to updated in the future. Working group members can ignore these highlights for now.
Please carefully review this document in coordination with the groups you represent. If you feel that there are items that need to be revised, *please enter them here [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1eRM4mFGDNYhb0...>. *For each item, please include:
- Report version (the date listed in the header of the document) and applicable line numbers ( these are listed along the left margin of the document). - Name and group you represent: If multiple WG members represent a group, input should be in coordination with these other members. - Rationale: please provide a clear explanation for why you are proposing the revision. - Specific proposed revision: Provide the language you would like to see added/removed/edited.
*The inputs will be reviewed when the working group returns to considering Phase 1(a) items. Additional information about the timeline for returning to Phase 1(a) will be provided as we progress through discussion of Phase 2 topics. *
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions about the review process.
Kind regards,
Caitlin, Julie, Berry, and Emily
Emily Barabas
Policy Development Support Senior Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
******************** CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Catherine Merdinger -
Emily Barabas -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Owen Smigelski -
Steve Crocker