<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Motions for next week's meeting
Yes. Do you need me to resubmit the motions?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 1/13/2012 12:12 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Mason Cole; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting
Mason, are you OK with doing that?
Stéphane
Le 12 janv. 2012 à 00:00, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
Easiest fix is to take out that whereas clause (since we are
trying to cut down on those anyway).
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the original message.
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Mason Cole; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting
Thanks Jeff.
Can you suggest a FA please?
Stéphane
Le 11 janv. 2012 à 14:11, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :
I will second, but just ask that we change the Whearas clauses to
acknowledge the comments received by the IPC (even if past the due date).
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the original message.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Mason Cole
Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting
Thanks Mason for making these.
Are there seconds for these motions?
Glen, please upload them to the wiki. Thanks.
Stéphane
Le 10 janv. 2012 à 19:57, Mason Cole a écrit :
Happy New Year all --
I move for the following two items:
Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B
Recommendation #8
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 in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at
its meeting on 22 June to request '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';
WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the
IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);
WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum
and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff
proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors
that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related
ICANN Staff proposal (as described in
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).
==============
Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B
Recommendation #9 part 2
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 in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council
resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal
for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, 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;
WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the
IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);
WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum
and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff
proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors
that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the
related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|