[council] Re: [council] Re: [council] [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy

[Erika Mann <erika@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James - I support that we proceed and submit the letter without a formal
motion.

Cheers,
Erika

Erika Mann - erika@xxxxxxxxxxxx - +32 498 12 13 54


On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I agree as well. In the absence of any objections, I don’t see why we
> can’t send this to the board without having to vote on it. Asking the Board
> to send this to the PPSAI IRT seems like a solid idea to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:47 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I completely support both the letter and
> >
> >  ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.
> >
> > your suggestion thereof. This is very time sensitive and will the rules
> presumably becoming live on December 1st (am I wrong here?) we're already
> playing catch up.
> >
> > A big thanks to Darcy for your hard work on this. This is a very
> important issue and I'm grateful for your leadership on it.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Ed Morris
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:29 AM
> > To: "Darcy Southwell" <darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to
> ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy
> >
> > Thanks, Darcy, for raising this motion.
> >
> > Councilors – as we discussed in Hyderabad, this request is coming from
> the Registrar Stakeholder Group, regarding the implementation of a very
> narrow element of IRTP-C. ICANN GDD Staff has indicated that they do not
> have the ability to agree to this request, absent a request from the GNSO
> Council and direction by the ICANN Board.
> >
> > Question for the Council:  are there any questions or concerns on this
> topic, or is this relatively non-controversial?  If the latter, then I
> would ask that we consider the short time frame before the Board’s next
> meeting (8 DEC) and ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and
> submit the letter.
> >
> > Interested in hearing your thoughts.
> >
> > Thanks—
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> > From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <
> darcy.southwell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41
> > To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board
> Regarding Transfer Policy
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board
> Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication.  You
> will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us
> that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration
> and further direction to ICANN staff.  This motion and the draft
> communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this
> being heard at our December 1 meeting.
> >
> > Best,
> > Darcy
> > __________
> > Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer
> > M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
> >
> > <Attachment 1>
>
>
>