[council] Absentee vote on Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions PDP

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councilors,

In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from 
the meeting today, Thursday 4 September, are invited to send the GNSO 
secretariat <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxx> a request for a ballot.

Councilors noted as absent: Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Carlos Souza, Adrian 
Kinderis, Tom Keller, Edmon Chung and Norbert Klein.
(Norbert Klein was disconnected from the call at the time of the vote due to 
bad weather conditions.)

You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN.
The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, 
so please indicate your reason for  abstaining.

This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 
14:25 UTC on Thursday 4 September 2008.
Completed ballots are due NLT 14:25 UTC, Sunday, 7 September 2008
(10:25 EDT, 11:25 Rio de Janeiro, 15:25 London, 16:25 Germany, 21:25 Phnom 
Penh, 22:25 HongKong, 00:25 Melbourne Monday 8 September 2008)


Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy 
Development Process (PDP)
Moved: Avri Doria
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

On 20 November 2007, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process 
(PDP) to clarify four of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the 
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;

and this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, 
resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 April 2008;
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf

and the GNSO Council, in its deliberations regarding the Final Report, resolved 
to launch a drafting group to propose new provision texts for the four denial 
reasons addressed;

and the drafting group reached consensus on new texts for two of the denial 
reasons (8 and 9), while reaching agreement that the two other denial reasons 
(5 and 7) required a more in-depth review than mere clarifications of the 
originally intended meaning, and that such a review could preferably be 
undertaken as part of the scope of the foreseen IRTP PDP

Resolved:

1. That Denial reason #8 in which the current test reads:

A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period

Be amended to read:

The transfer was requested within 60 days of the creation date as shown in the 
registry Whois record for the domain name.

2. That Denial reason #9 in which the current text reads:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after 
being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar 
in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute 
resolution process so directs).

Be amended to read:

A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after 
being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar 
in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute 
resolution process so directs). "Transferred" shall only mean that an 
inter-registrar transfer, or transfer to the Registrar of Record has occurred 
in accordance with the procedures of this policy.

3. That the work on denial reason #5 in which the current text reads:

No payment for previous registration period (including credit-card chargebacks) 
if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current 
registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, 
however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the 
Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer.

      Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is 
initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in 
the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.

4 That the work on denial reason #7 in which the current text reads:

A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides 
a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to 
remove the lock status.

      Be suspended until such time as PDP C of the IRTP Issues PDP is 
initiated. The results of work done by the Draft Teams should be included in 
the initial report to be done by the Staff for this potential PDP.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org