ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:26:13 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <6763FB25-DE44-4CDF-9FF5-ABC537648B47@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcgVrow0vlyzBhJnTBubYiOEI6usngABFp9w
  • Thread-topic: [council] Issues Report on specified Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues

I would prefer that we not vote on Thursday.  I will be traveling back
to DC, and made my travel plans on the assumption that Wednesday was our
only voting meeting.


        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
        Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:53 PM
        To: Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on specified
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues

        This thread brings up the fact hat we did receive the Issue
report on 19 October and given our resolve to meet the time limits in
the by-laws, we should be discussing the issues report and voting on
whether to commence a PDP on the issues in the report no later then 3
Nov 2007.

        Our schedule is already full for Wednesday and there is nothing
on that schedule I would feel comfortable either shortening the time on,
or moving to a later meeting.  We do have a meeting scheduled for
Thursday 1400-1700 which is slated for an open discussion of input from
the meetings.  I would like to spend 30 minutes of this 3 hour time slot
to discuss the issues report and decide on whether to initiate the PDP
process; i.e. to vote on two motions:

        1. Whether to initiate a PDP process as recommended by Staff on
page 22 of the issues report:

                6.1 Staff has confirmed that the proposed issues are
within the scope of 
                the policy development process and the GNSO.  It is
reasonable from 
                the staff's perspective to expect that greater precision
and certainty 
                around the terms of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
would be 
                beneficial to the community generally, particularly for
registrants, as 
                well as those parties (gTLD registries and registrars)
who are obligated 
                to comply with the policy provisions.  Staff therefore
recommends that 
                the GNSO Council proceed with a policy development
process limited 
                to consideration of the issues discussed in this report.

        2. Whether to create a Task Force for this purpose.

        In the spirit of trying to met the timelines as outlined in the
by-laws, and as supported by the council in our last meting, I hope
there is not a strong objection to allowing this vote to occur as part
of the Thursday meeting.  If there is strong objection, then I believe
we will need to vote on a specific delay as part of the Wednesday



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>