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 no comments were received as part of the public comment forum 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 no comments were received as part of the public comment forum 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).