[council] Re: [council] Re: [council] Re: [council] [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Erika, Amr & Ed.

Hoping to hear from others as well, but understanding it’s a holiday week in 
the US and folks may be focused on more important things.
Thanks—
J.

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Erika Mann 
<erika@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 15:53
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Re: [council] Re: [council] [council] Motion – GNSO Council 
Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy

James - I support that we proceed and submit the letter without a formal motion.

Cheers,
Erika

Erika Mann - erika@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:erika@xxxxxxxxxxxx> - +32 498 12 13 54


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Amr Elsadr 
<aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Hi,

I agree as well. In the absence of any objections, I don’t see why we can’t 
send this to the board without having to vote on it. Asking the Board to send 
this to the PPSAI IRT seems like a solid idea to me.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Edward Morris 
> <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> I completely support both the letter and
>
>  ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.
>
> your suggestion thereof. This is very time sensitive and will the rules 
> presumably becoming live on December 1st (am I wrong here?) we're already 
> playing catch up.
>
> A big thanks to Darcy for your hard work on this. This is a very important 
> issue and I'm grateful for your leadership on it.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed Morris
>
>
>
> From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:29 AM
> To: "Darcy Southwell" 
> <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN 
> Board Regarding Transfer Policy
>
> Thanks, Darcy, for raising this motion.
>
> Councilors – as we discussed in Hyderabad, this request is coming from the 
> Registrar Stakeholder Group, regarding the implementation of a very narrow 
> element of IRTP-C. ICANN GDD Staff has indicated that they do not have the 
> ability to agree to this request, absent a request from the GNSO Council and 
> direction by the ICANN Board.
>
> Question for the Council:  are there any questions or concerns on this topic, 
> or is this relatively non-controversial?  If the latter, then I would ask 
> that we consider the short time frame before the Board’s next meeting (8 DEC) 
> and ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.
>
> Interested in hearing your thoughts.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
> behalf of Darcy Southwell 
> <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41
> To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board 
> Regarding Transfer Policy
>
> All,
>
> Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding 
> Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication.  You will recall 
> from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council 
> would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further 
> direction to ICANN staff.  This motion and the draft communication were 
> prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our 
> December 1 meeting.
>
> Best,
> Darcy
> __________
> Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer
> M: +1 503-453-7305<tel:%2B1%20503-453-7305> │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
>
> <Attachment 1>