RE: [council] Questions for Council from IRTP-B WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with both of your conclusions Tim.  A PDP as the name implies is
to develop policy; that does not mean that there will always be policy
recommendations (e.g., Fast Flux PDP), but policy recommendations
certainly seem to be in order.  

Regarding the second issue, the reason we split the IRTP review into
multiple PDPs was to make it more manageable by breaking it into smaller
chunks.  If the IRTP-B PDP WG finds that it may be efficient to deal
with some tasks assigned to other IRTP PDPs and is willing to do so, I
personally encouage that.

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:51 PM
> To: GNSO Council 
> Subject: [council] Questions for Council from IRTP-B WG
> 
> 
> During the last IRTP-B PDP WG meeting the following two 
> issues came up and I was asked to verify/clarify with Council:
> 
> 1. The wording of the charter and charter questions for 
> IRTP-B does not explicitly state that the WG may make 
> "policy" recommendations. The charter states, "The Working 
> Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in 
> the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO 
> Council:" The WG would like to confirm that it is within the 
> charter to make actual "policy" recommendations. I believe 
> that was intended since this is an actual PDP.
> 
> 2. In discussions of questions a) and b) (see below) the WG 
> feels that the issue raised in number 8 of IRTP-D (see below) 
> may come into play.
> Is it acceptable if resultant recommendations from IRTP-B 
> touch on or even address number 8 of IRTP-D? I believe it is. 
> The previous PDP for IRTP-A resulted in recommendations to 
> push a couple of issues off as more appropriate for a later 
> PDP. I see no reason for the reverse not to happen when appropriate.
> 
> Please let me know if there is any disagreement with either 
> of the above conclusions on my part, or if you feel more than 
> a list discussion is necessary before responding to the WG.
> 
> REFERENCES:
> 
> Questions a) and b) of the IRTP-B charter:
> 
> 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.p
> df); 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;
> 
> Complete IRTP-B charter is near the bottom of the IRTP-B WG wiki:
> https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi
> 
> Number 8 of IRTP-D:
> 8. Whether additional provisions should be included in the 
> TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle 
> disputes when multiple transfers have occurred.
> 
> IRTP Issues PDP Recommendations:
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-g
> roupings-19mar08.pdf
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>