RE: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Tim for taking over as liason.  I've been lurking on the list and
know the Working Group has given this good thought.

I second the motion. 


Mike Rodenbaugh
Rodenbaugh Law
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
+1.415.738.8087
www.rodenbaugh.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:10 AM
To: GNSO Council 
Subject: [council] Motion on next round of IRTP issues to address

The IRTP Working Group has considered the issues contained in Part B and
Part C for possible inclusion in the next round of work on the remaining
IRTP issues. As a result, they have asked that I present the following
motion (below in text, and attached in a Word doc):

Tim

WHEREAS,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy
under review by the GNSO,

A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP
issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list,

Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from
the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration
Domain Name Recovery,

The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B
and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be
more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all
the IRTP PDPs,

The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in
one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report, 

RESOLVED,
Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council
initiate the formal GNSO Policy Development Process by requesting the
creation of an issues report on the following issues:

a)      Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name
should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm).
(Issue #2)
b)      Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin
Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but
how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar.
(Issue #7)
c)      Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant
near
a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of
registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9)
d)      Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not
be applied). (Issue #5)
e)      Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: 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. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG)

(Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in
the Transfers Working Group list.)