Page History

P140: David to provide reference to discussion mentioned in details of recommendation 29

P132: David to review suggested edit from Jamie: "There is nevertheless fairly substantial anecdotal evidence that brand owners are reluctant purchasers of Sunrise registrations and many see it as a cost that is overly expensive."

P124: Jamie/Drew to review sentence “This precedent established that use of the PICDRP was relegated to analyzing the operator’s adherence to its own rules rather than considering the merits of whether the registry was effectively violating its commitments through a totality of actions. This gap between intended PIC goals and accountability mechanisms mirrored the gap between PICs and outcomes for some registries.” (Comment from Jamie: Is this new language? If so, it is opinion and not fact. It seems that the complaint here is that the RO should have been bound by obligations outside the contract and its own policies that can only be seen through an examination of the totality of its actions. In fact, whether it’s a PICDRP or ICANN Compliance, the only obligations that are relevant are those that are spelled out in the contract, including RO policies incorporated by reference. There was no precedent established here. This reflects standard contract enforcement. “

Jordyn to provide language for rationale on recommendation 12: “add a reference to above recommendation,  mention of (3) the safety and security of users’ personal and sensitive information (including health and financial information).

Draft Report: p11: David Taylor to review updated paragraph on defensive registrations and confirm approval of paragraph

Draft Report: p8: Drewreview the definitions of abuse provided in the footnote 11.

Review team to review latest version of the final report, and submit edits/comment/objections/concerns by 28 August – 23:59 UTC

Rec. 12: Jordyn/Laureen to add in rationale/related findings reference to “safety & security of users’ personal and sensitive information”, and circulate final version on Monday 27 August at the latest, for inclusion in the final report.

Rec. 15, 17: Drew/David to combine recommendations, assess whether priority of recommendation should be changed to Prerequisite, add language on DADRP in details section of recommendation, and submit updated version to Jordyn for his review before Friday 23:59 UTC. Laureen to submit an “objective” updated version to Jordyn.

Board letter: Once recommendations are finalized, Jonathan will scrub the timing related information (priority of recommendations) and prescriptive tone in recommendations.

• Updates to Final Report:
  • Executive Summary to include a section on conclusions about the program (Jonathan)
  • Final numbering of recommendations: Restart with clear numbering and digestible way of reporting recommendations. Add a paragraph under the public comment section in the appendix “review process” describing which recommendations were consolidated based on the input received from comments.
  • Recommendation summary: add a column with level of consensus.
  • Finish consolidation exercise, circle back to staff for a cost analysis of the new/consolidated recommendations, CCTRT to determine whether each recommendation is worth/not the cost, and if it’s not then delete.
  • Review Team to identify any sections in the draft report that need to be updated based on public comments received, and all to compare public comment sheet to apply changes.