[council] RE: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 1:49 AM
> To: Edmon Chung
> Subject: TWO absentee ballots - please vote and return ballots
> Importance: High
> 
> Dear Edmon,
> 
> PLEASE NOTE:
> There are TWO motions. Please return TWO ballots, that is, send the lines
preceded
> with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council mailing list
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> MOTION 1
> Here is your absentee ballot.  Please indicate your preference with an X
and send
> the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing
list.
> 
> * On the motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A
Policy
> Development Process (PDP) I vote:
> * [X] Yes
> * [ ] No
> * [ ] Abstain
> * Password: purple-1
> 
> This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which
ended at
> 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009.
> 
> Completed ballots are due NLT  16:10 UTC, Sunday, 19 April 2009.
> 
> (09:10 PDT, 12:10 EDT, 13:10 Rio de Janeiro, 17:10 London, 18:10 CEST,
22:10
> Karachi, 00:10 Hong Kong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 20 April 2009)
>
............................................................................
..................
> MOTION 1
> Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A
Policy
> Development Process (PDP)
> 
> Motion by: Mike Rodenbaugh
> Seconded by: Chuck Gomes
> 
> Whereas:
> 
> On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process
> (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in
2008
> addressing
> (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between
registrars,
> 
> (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to
verify
> transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and
> 
> (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial
bulk transfers"
> between registrars;
> 
> Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
Bylaws,
> resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009;
> 
> Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in
> relation to each of the three issues outlined above;
> 
> Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to
the
> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council:
> 
> (1) Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for
the
> exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct
an
> analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for
IRTP
> purposes;
> 
> (2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness
of a
> policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer
after it has
> been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and,
> 
> (3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk
transfer of
> domain names in only one gTLD.
> 
> Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;
> 
> The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
> 
> To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be
a viable
> option for the exchange of registrant email address data between
registrars and
> conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and
appropriateness for
> IRTP purposes.
> 
> To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness
of a
> policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer
after it has
> been completed and authorized by the admin contact.
> 
> Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that
the
> current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer
of all names
> in one single gTLD under management of a registrar.
> 
> Footnote:
> >From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars:
'Transfer of the
> sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the
result of
> 
> (i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or
> 
> (ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization
with the Registry
> Operator, may be made according to the following procedure:
> 
> (a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD
and
> must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator
for the
> Registry TLD.
> (b) ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer
would
> promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may
be
> threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar.
> 
> 
> Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make
the
> necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for
transfers
> involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves
registrations of
> more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining
Registrar a one-
> time flat fee of US$ 50,000.'
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> MOTION 2
> 
> Here is your absentee ballot.  Please indicate your preference with an X
and send
> the lines preceded with *asterisks directly to the GNSO Council Mailing
list.
> 
> * On the motion on Next round of IRTP issues to address I vote:
> * [X] Yes
> * [ ] No
> * [ ] Abstain
> * Password: purple-1
> 
> This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which
ended at
> 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009.
> 
> Completed ballots are due NLT  16:10 UTC, Sunday, 19 April 2009.
> 
> (09:10 PDT, 12:10 EDT, 13:10 Rio de Janeiro, 17:10 London, 18:10 CEST,
22:10
> Karachi, 00:10 Hong Kong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 20 April 2009)
> 
> MOTION 2
> Next round of IRTP issues to address
> 
> Made by Tim Ruiz
> Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh
> 
> 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 requests 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. Issues a to c form the original
> PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.)
> 
> Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in
> recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff
> complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or
> reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> 
> 
> Glen de Saint Géry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://gnso.icann.org