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

[Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul or I will provide input ASAP first thing next week.


Best wishes,


Heather

________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of 
Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 9:08:23 AM
To: Amr Elsadr; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Re: [council] Re: [council] [council] Motion – GNSO Council 
Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy


Totally agree.
Stephanie

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.
  Original Message
From: Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 4:50 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Re: [council] [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication 
to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy


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> 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>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:29 AM
> To: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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> on behalf of Darcy Southwell 
> <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41
> To: GNSO Council List <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 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
>
> <Attachment 1>