ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] IRTP Part B Motions for action in Sydney

  • To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] IRTP Part B Motions for action in Sydney
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:44:15 -0700
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.0.20

I am making the following two motions regarding IRTP Part B (drafted in
consultation with the Transfers WG) for consideration in Sydney. Seconds
please. The motions are also attached as a doc file.


Motion I – Initiation of a PDP on IRTP Part B

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

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its
review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into
suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the
overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April
2009 to combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B,
addressing three issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the
issues outlined in issue set C, related to registrar lock status into
one IRTP Part B,

The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was
submitted to the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009,

The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy
Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in
this report, and

The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within
the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO

The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar
Transfer Policy Issues Report Part B.

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the
requirements of the PDP.

Motion II – Approval of a Charter for the IRTP Part B WG

On [date] 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and, decided
to create a PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of
the PDP, and,

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz confirmed as
the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Part B WG. 

The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B WG be
initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until
such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed
by the GNSO Council, the GNSO council Liaison shall act as interim

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in
the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: 
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); 
b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule
the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of
the registrar;
c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when
it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not
currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in
hijacking cases;
d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should
not be applied);
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.

Working Group processes:
While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are
still to be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:
- The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all
points of view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the
point of view is understood and has been covered. Consensus views should
include the names and affiliations of those in agreement with that view.
Anyone with a minority view will be invited to include a discussion in
the WG report. Minority report should include the names and affiliations
of those contributing to the minority report.

- In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for
designating each position as having one of the following designations:
--- Unanimous consensus position
--- Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority
disagrees but most agree
--- Strong support but significant opposition
--- Minority viewpoint(s)

- If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to
a position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can
follow these steps sequentially:
  1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision
is believed to be in error.
  2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council
liaison(s) to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in
the response. * If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward
the appeal to the council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her
reasoning in the response.
  3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a
statement of the appeal to the board report. This statement should
include all of the documentation from all steps in the appeals process
and should include a statement from the council.

- The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is
empowered to restrict the participation of someone who seriously
disrupts the WG. Any such restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO
council. Generally the participant should first be warned privately, and
then warned publicly before such a restriction is put into place. In
extreme circumstances this requirement may be bypassed.

- The WG will have an archived mailing list. The mailing list will be
open for reading by the community. All WG meetings will be recorded and
all recordings will be available to the public. A IRTP PDP B mailing
list has been created (Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx) and the public
archives are at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/. 

- A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found at

- If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG,
the WG may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time it
was (re)chartered or use the new guidelines.

- The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG
status monthly to the council.

- All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months
for renewal.

- WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified     = T
- Initial Report: T + 170 days
- First comment period ends: T + 190 days
- Preliminary Final Report: T + 220 days.

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates,
it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

Attachment: IRTP_Part-B_Motions_10June2009.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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