RE: [council] Fwd: IRTP-D Motion

[Yoav Keren <yoav@xxxxxxxx>]

I second the motion.

Yoav


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@01CDF2AE.5FB59760]

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mason Cole
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:58 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx List
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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions%2320121017-4>);

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<mailto:mason@xxxxxxxxx>
Ofc +1 503 908 7623
Cell +1 503 407 2555







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



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