<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting
Thanks Mason,
Please just send your updated text so that Glen can pick it up for the wiki.
Thanks again.
Stéphane
Le 13 janv. 2012 à 23:58, Mason Cole a écrit :
> 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
>>>
|