[council] Updated Council motions for 22 June 2011 at 14:00

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,



Please find the updated motions for the Council meeting tomorrow:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011



Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations

Made by: Tim Ruiz

Seconded by: Jonathan Robinson

Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process 
(PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

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.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, 
resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in 
relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved


Required Voting Threshold [1]


RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors:

1. Requiring Registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC). 
To this end the language of section 4 (Registrar Coordination) and Section 6 
(Registry Requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy should be updated 
as follows:

Transfer Emergency Action Contact (Append to Section 4)
Registrars will establish a Transfer Emergency Action Contact (TEAC) for urgent 
communications relating to transfers. The goal of the TEAC is to quickly 
establish a real-time conversation between registrars (in a language that both 
parties can understand) in an emergency. Further actions can then be taken 
towards a resolution, including initiating existing (or future) transfer 
dispute or undo processes.

Communications to TEACs will be reserved for use by ICANN-Accredited 
Registrars, gTLD Registry Operators and ICANN Staff. The TEAC point of contact 
may be designated as a telephone number or some other real-time communication 
channel and will be recorded in, and protected by, the ICANN RADAR system.

Communications to a TEAC must be initiated in a timely manner, within a 
reasonable period of time following the alleged unauthorized loss of a domain.

Messages sent via the TEAC communication channel must generate a non-automated 
response by a human representative of the gaining Registrar. The person or team 
responding must be capable and authorized to investigate and address urgent 
transfer issues. Responses are required within 4 hours of the initial request, 
although final resolution of the incident may take longer.

The losing registrar will report failures to respond to a TEAC communication to 
ICANN Compliance and the registry operator. Failure to respond to a TEAC 
communication may result in a transfer-undo in accordance with Section 6 of 
this policy and may also result in further action by ICANN, up to and including 
non-renewal or termination of accreditation.

Both parties will retain correspondence in written or electronic form of any 
TEAC communication and responses, and share copies of this documentation with 
ICANN and the registry operator upon request. This documentation will be 
retained in accordance with Section 3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement (RAA). Users of the TEAC communication channel should report 
non-responsive Registrars to ICANN. Additionally, ICANN may conduct periodic 
tests of the Registrar TEAC communication channel in situations and a manner 
deemed appropriate to ensure that registrars are indeed responding to TEAC 
messages.

(Append to Section 6) 6 iv. Documentation provided by the Registrar of Record 
prior to transfer that the Gaining Registrar has not responded to a message via 
the TEAC within the timeframe specified in Section 4.

In addition, update section 6 to reflect that the registry, in case of a 
transfer undo, will reverse the transfer and reset the registrar of record 
filed to its original state ('In such case, the transfer will be reversed and 
the Registrar of Record field reset to its original state'). (IRTP Part B 
Recommendation #1)

2. Modifying section 3 of the IRTP to require that the Registrar of 
Record/Losing Registrar be required to notify the Registered Name 
Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of Record has access to 
the contact information for the Registrant and could modify their systems to 
automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing Registrars 
("Confirmation FOA") to the Registrant. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #5)

3. Modifying Reason for Denial #6 as follows: Express objection to the transfer 
by the authorized Transfer Contact. Objection could take the form of specific 
request (either by paper or electronic means) by the authorized Transfer 
Contact to deny a particular transfer request, or a general objection to all 
transfer requests received by the Registrar, either temporarily or 
indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must be provided with the express and 
informed consent of the authorized Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis and upon 
request by the authorized Transfer Contact, the Registrar must remove the lock 
or provide a reasonably accessible method for the authorized Transfer Contact 
to remove the lock within five (5) calendar days. (IRTP Part B Recommendation 
#6)

4. Deleting denial reason #7 as a valid reason for denial under section 3 of 
the IRTP as it is technically not possible to initiate a transfer for a domain 
name that is locked, and hence cannot be denied, making this denial reason 
obsolete. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 - part 1)


More than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO 
Supermajority")



Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting 
Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of 
the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority 
vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting 
party affected by such contract provision. In the event a GNSO Supermajority 
Vote is not achieved, approval of the recommendations contained in the Final 
Report requires a majority of both houses and further requires that one 
representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the 
recommendations. Abstentions shall not be permitted; thus all Council members 
must cast a vote unless they identify a financial interest in the outcome of 
the policy issue.[2]



RESOLVED (B), the GNSO Council recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN 
structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name 
Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the GNSO Council recommends 
that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts 
against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include 
practical measures that registrants can implement "in house", such as ways to 
protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations 
into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and 
large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change 
notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system 
for possible account compromise. The GNSO Council Chair will reach out to the 
ALAC and other ICANN structures to inform them of this recommendation and 
discuss how the GNSO may contribute to this promotion. (IRTP Part B 
Recommendation #2)


Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative 
vote of a GNSO Supermajority



Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an 
affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO 
Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups 
supports the Recommendation




RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council recommends that if a review of the UDRP is 
conducted in the near future, the issue of requiring the locking of a domain 
name subject to UDRP proceedings is taken into consideration. (IRTP Part B 
Recommendation #7)


Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative 
vote of a GNSO Supermajority



Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an 
affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO 
Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups 
supports the Recommendation




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.


Simple majority vote of each House


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.


Simple majority vote of each House


RESOLVED (F), the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the requirement of 
'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible 
subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible 
requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, 
but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are 
likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when 
deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would 
be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)


At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House 
or a majority of one House.


RESOLVED (G), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part C, which 
should include:

- "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function 
is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code 
name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any 
associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking 
procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to 
balance legitimate transfer activity and security. (IRTP Part B Recommendation 
#4)

- Whether provisions on time-limiting FOAs should be implemented to avoid 
fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and 
receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the 
registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during 
which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.

- Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use 
IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.


At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House 
or a majority of one House.


MOTION 2.  RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO 
PROXY VOTING
Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO 
Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures 
relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with 
completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended 
revisions
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/osc-recommended-revisions-proxy-voting-14jun11-en.pdf
 to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to simplify and clarify the 
procedures relating to proxy voting;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of the recommended 
revisions submitted by the OSC and directs Staff produce a redlined revision of 
the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions 
and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment 
Forum.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these 
recommendations, including potential modification, as soon as possible after 
the conclusion of the public comment period.

















Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org





________________________________

[1] As a reminder, the level of support received from the GNSO Council for the 
recommendation (GNSO Supermajority or no GNSO Supermajority) determines the 
voting threshold required by the Board to reject a GNSO Council recommendation 
as outlined in section 13 Board Vote of Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws.

[2] In the event that this recommendation is not approved by a GNSO 
supermajority vote, the recommendations would not be considered consensus 
policy and therefore not be binding on existing contracted parties.