If I heard correctly, the Phase I WG said they couldn’t reach agreement on the details and left it to the implementation team— that’s us — to work out the details. In my view, that’s exactly where this proposal fits. If this group feels this proposal cannot be adopted because it doesn’t fit within the confines of the policy decisions made earlier, we’re going to wind up without a workable solution. That will lead to reopening the policy process and returning to exactly where we are now. Better for us to propose a workable solution. This proposal implies some expense for ICANN but little or no additional expense to registrars. Steve Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 17, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Rubens Kuhl via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> wrote:
Em 17 de jul. de 2023, à(s) 14:00, Steve Crocker via IRT.RegDataPolicy <irt.regdatapolicy@icann.org> escreveu:
Folks,
Attached is a proposed way forward regarding Urgent requests.
Which is partly an implementation of a different policy than the GNSO/Board approved one, partly the same issue with imposing 7x8 coverage of lawyer personnel for contracted parties.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ IRT.RegDataPolicy mailing list IRT.RegDataPolicy@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/irt.regdatapolicy
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.