Dear Councilors, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 16 April 2009 are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat@icann.org> a request for a ballot. There are TWO Motions to vote on: 1 Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) 2 Next round of IRTP issues to address Councilors noted as absent: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Adrian Kinderis, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung. You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. This process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 16:10 UTC on Thursday 16 April 2009. Completed ballots are due NLT 16:10 UTC, Sunday, 19 April 2009. (09:10 PDT, 12:10 EDT, 13:10 Rio de Janeiro, 17:10 London, 18:10 CEST, 22:10 Karachi, 00:10 Hong Kong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 20 April 2009) Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat .............................................................................................. MOTION 1 Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP) Motion by: Mike Rodenbaugh Seconded by: Chuck Gomes Whereas: On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars; Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009; Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above; Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council: (1) Carry out an assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes; (2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and, (3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD. Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: To encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes. To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar. Footnote:
From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: 'Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of
(i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or (ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure: (a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD. (b) ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar. Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION 2 Next round of IRTP issues to address Made by Tim Ruiz Seconded by Mike Rodenbaugh WHEREAS, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO, A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list, Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues report, RESOLVED, Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO Council requests the creation of an issues report on the following issues: 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). (Issue #2) b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar. (Issue #7) c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9) d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied). (Issue #5) 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. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG) (Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.) Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org