[council] GNSO Council Resolutions passed on 4 September 2008

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]

Dear Council Members,

Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the voting results of the motion on 
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Policy 
Development Process (PDP).

Absentee voting was allowed on the motion, one request was processed and one 
request was received too late for processing.

Kind regards,
Glen
.........................................................................................

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.


15 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Tony Harris, 
Robin Gross, Jon Bing, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, (one vote each)
Tim Ruiz, Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes (two votes each)
Greg Ruth (one vote - absentee vote by request)

1 vote against: Ute Decker (one vote)

2 Abstentions: Kristina Rosette: (one vote) reason: has not had an opportunity 
to discuss fully with the IPC constituency
Cyril Chua (one vote) connectivity issue, dropped off line.

The motion passed.


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