ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] FW: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] FW: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)
  • From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:03:29 -0700
  • Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ackv6CVzxOIZV1fJSGahF3B5eJDCPQAmjyjQ
  • Thread-topic: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)

Forwarded from Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> * On the motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on
> the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions
> Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote:
> * [X] Yes
> * [ ] No
> * [ ] Abstain
> * Password: black-2

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vendredi 17 octobre 2008 01:37
To: Gomes, Chuck; Glen de Saint Géry; Avri Doria
Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Olof Nordling
Subject: Re: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the 
(IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)

thanks Chuck, sorry for missing the mtg, and the resulting confusion on my end.



----- Original Message ----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>; Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: GNSO Secretariat <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Olof Nordling 
<olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:26:12 PM
Subject: RE: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on the 
(IRTP) Denial Definitions  (PDP)

Clarification in the meeting was made about this.  The motion provides the 
language in the existing policy and the latest proposed wording recommended to 
the Board.  It would have been helpful to show the previously recommended 
wording change and to have highlighted the text that was deleted.  Because 
everyone on the call seemed to be comfortable, we went with the motion as is.

BTW Mike, I had the same problem when I first read the motion.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 5:20 PM
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria
> Cc: GNSO Secretariat; Olof Nordling
> Subject: FW: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council
> Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)
>
> Mike, I defer to Avri and Chuck,
>
> Avri and Chuck will you please respond to Mike.
> Thank you,
> Glen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: jeudi 16 octobre 2008 21:22
> To: Glen de Saint Géry
> Subject: RE: Ballot on Motion on the Amendment to the Council
> Resolution on the (IRTP) Denial Definitions (PDP)
>
> Glen, the resolution does not jive with the Whereas clauses
> -- the language to be deleted is not shown in the "current
> text" shown in Resolution para.
> 1...
>
>
> * On the motion on the Amendment to the Council Resolution on
> the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions
> Policy Development Process (PDP) I vote:
> * [X] Yes
> * [ ] No
> * [ ] Abstain
> * Password: black-2
>
> Motion on Amendment to Council Resolution on the
> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions
> Policy Development Process (PDP)
> Moved: Chuck Gomes
> Seconded: Avri Doria
>
> Whereas:
>
> *       On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a Recommendation
> concluding a Policy Development Process (PDP) to clarify four
> of the nine transfer denial reasons enumerated in the
> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy;
>
> *       The ensuing public comment period rendered a comment
> identifying a
> possibility to misinterpret a part of the proposed text for
> Denial Reason #9, notably the words "or transfer to the
> Registrar of Record";
>
> *       The GNSO Council, in consultation with members of the
> drafting group
> for this PDP, has found it appropriate to delete these words
> from the proposed text for Denial Reason #9;
>
>
> Resolved:
>
> 1. 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 has occurred in
> accordance with the procedures of this policy.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org
> tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44
> Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27
> Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54
> Blackberry email: gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>





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