[council] RE: Motion for the next meeting

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yoav,

Thank you, the motion has been posted on the Wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012

Kind regards,
Glen

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Yoav Keren
Sent: mercredi 8 février 2012 23:16
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion for the next meeting

Dear all,

I would like to submit the following motion for our next meetingL

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 on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff 
proposal (as described in  
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html );

WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments 
(as described in 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html );

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 
updated proposal (as described in 
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12580.html ).



Yoav Keren
CEO
Domain The Net Technologies Ltd.
81 Sokolov st.         Tel: +972-3-7600500
Ramat Hasharon     Fax: +972-3-7600505
Israel 47238
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCE6BA.478F4920]





************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.
************************************************************************************