[council] RE: Motions for next week's meeting

["Mason Cole" <mcole@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All --

At Jeff's request, I have amended the sections below that discuss receipt of 
comments. 

Thanks --

Mason


-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Cole
Sent: Tue 1/10/2012 10:57 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Motions for next week's meeting
 
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 comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and 
though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the 
GNSO Council, and 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 comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and 
though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the 
GNSO Council, and 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).