Re: [council] Fwd: IRTP-D Motion

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

No objection


Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 213 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 213 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:58:27 
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Fwd: IRTP-D Motion


> Councilors --
> 
> In her initial email, Marika helpfully suggested that the council consider 
> the motion below AND, simultaneously, a motion to approve the charter.  I 
> missed the charter portion of her message (entirely my error) and did not 
> include it in my motion.
> 
> I would like to add a motion now to approve the charter.  I fully realize we 
> are beyond the deadline for motions for next week's meeting, so I will ask 
> the chair now if the deadline can be waived due to this oversight, and I ask 
> the council if anyone would object to this.
> 
> I therefore move for the adoption of this additional motion, as follows:
> 
> Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 
> (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG)
> 
>  
> 
> Whereas
> 
>  
> 
> On [date] the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 
> the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D and decided to create a PDP 
> Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;
> 
>  
> 
> The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.
> 
>  
> 
> RESOLVED,
> 
>  
> 
> The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the 
> GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.
> 
>  
> 
> The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part D WG be 
> initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such 
> time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO 
> Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
> 
>  
> 
> Charter
> 
>  
> 
> The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the 
> Final Issue Report ([include link to Final Issue Report]) and make 
> recommendations to the GNSO Council:
> 
> IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements
> 
> a)         Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute 
> providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend 
> information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in 
> dispute submissions;
> 
> b)         Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP 
> (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple 
> transfers have occurred;
> 
> c)          Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and 
> implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars 
> to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
> 
> d)         Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place 
> for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options 
> available to registrants;
> 
> Penalties for IRTP Violations
> 
> e)         Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or 
> if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added 
> into the policy;
> 
> Need for FOAs
> 
> f)           Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP 
> AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.
> 
>  
> 
> The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group 
> Guidelines 
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Mason Cole wrote:
> 
>> Council colleagues --
>> 
>> I move for the adoption of the attached motion during our next council 
>> meeting.  I would appreciate a second to the motion.
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> Mason
>> 
>> 
>> Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar 
>> Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
>> 
>> Whereas
>>  
>> The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy 
>> under review by the GNSO;
>>  
>> The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review 
>> of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested 
>> PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;
>>  
>> The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 
>> 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);
>>  
>> A Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 14 November 2012 
>> for public comment (see 
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14nov12-en.htm).;
>>  
>> A Final Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 8 January 2012 (see 
>> [include link to Final Issue Report]);
>>  
>> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a 
>> Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed 
>> in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is 
>> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope 
>> of the GNSO
>>  
>> RESOLVED:
>>  
>> The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report 
>> on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D ([include link to Final Issue 
>> Report]).
>>  
>> A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the 
>> requirements of the PDP.
> 
> Mason Cole 
> VP Communications & Industry Relations
> Donuts Inc.
> …………………………………………
> mason@xxxxxxxxx
> Ofc +1 503 908 7623
> Cell +1 503 407 2555
>