RE: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes.  Accepted.  Jonathan.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 21 June 2011 11:12
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion


Thanks Tim.

Jonathan, would you accept this as friendly?

Glen, please update the wiki with the amended motion if Jonathan accepts it
as friendly.

Stéphane



Le 21 juin 2011 à 04:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> I should have said I am proposing it. I consider it friendly and hope
> that Jonathan, as seconder of the original motion, will find it as
> friendly as well.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion
> > From: "Tim Ruiz" 
> > Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm
> > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be
> > considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and
> > they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are
> > not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes.
> > The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following:
> > 
> > RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the
> > recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by
> > adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and
> > how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN
> > Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, taking into
> > account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see
> > IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of
> > the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the
> > recommendation.
> > 
> > RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the
> > recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status
> > messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests
> > ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically
> > feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff
> > should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to
> > this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation
> > #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been
> > applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the
> > GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation.
> > 
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > 
> 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6224 (20110620) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com