RE: [registrars] RGP Bug - Steps for a proposed fix

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Ross,

> 
> 
> In addition to hearing from the Registries, I would like to 
> request that
> we issue a formal invitation to an ICANN Staff representative in order
> that they can clearly outline their position on this matter for the
> record. While it seems that both the ICANN Staff and the 
> Registries were
> perfectly clear in their conception of the policy during its
> development, it seems that important details were not communicated or
> appropriately understood by this constituency. 

As a member of the committee that developed the broad outlines for a redemption grace period, I think the committee report was communicated widely.  But often the "devil is in the detail".  We did not see the final requirements document before development for example.

I think with any change - it is inevitable that not all side-effects were considered.
The appropriate step is to effectively treat this as a "bug" (which as is often the case derived from the original requirements) - and have a mechanism
(starting with a discussion with the registries, and then getting ICANN endorsement) to fix the bug.  From an engineering point of view - now is the time to submit a change request.  The meeting in Washington is a good forum for this to start.  

Also with any change a built in review should be considered.  e.g 3 months after implementation to consider any further changes.

Regards,
Bruce
>