Dear Councillors, Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were approved at the GNSO Council meeting on 23 July 2009. Thank you. Kind regards Glen 1. Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Working Group (WG) ========================================================================================== Proposed by Tim Ruiz, seconded by Chuck Gomes. Whereas On 24 June 2009 the GNSO Council initiated PDP IRTP Part B and, decided to create a PDP WG for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; and, The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter. Resolved The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz confirmed as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP PDP Part B WG. The GNSO council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part B 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 issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: 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. To inform its work, the WG should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance Staff to understand how elements of the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy that are applicable to the above questions are enforced. The WG should also request compliance Staff to review any policy recommendations it develops and provide advice on how the recommendations may best be structured to ensure clarity and enforceability. Working Group processes: While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to be developed the guidelines at the following link will apply to this WG: working group process https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_june_09_motions Milestones WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T Initial Report: T + 170 days" First comment period ends: T + 190 days Preliminary Final Report: T + 220 days. Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each) Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC). 2. Motion for the formation of the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG): ============================================================================ Proposed by Edmon Chung, seconded by Chuck Gomes WHEREAS GNSO IDN WG successfully completed its outcomes report in March 2007 and the GNSO Council approved the incorporation of its findings in the GNSO Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007, describing policy requirements for the introduction of IDN gTLDs; The Board Proposal from the IDNC WG was completed in June 2008, describing the IDN ccTLD Fast Track methodology; Both the drafts and excerpts for the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD process, and the drafts for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan had included implementation considerations for IDN TLDs; and, Issues of common interest between new IDN ccTLDs and new IDN gTLDs can be identified, including issues where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs should be consistent (e.g. IDN Language Table implementation at the root zone), and where implementation of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs are inter-related (e.g. 2-Character length TLDs as a reservation for ccTLDs); RESOLVED: To initiate together with the ccNSO a Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) based on the Draft Charter: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-charter-21jul09.pdf The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote Philip Sheppard, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil (CBUC), Cyril Chua (IPC), Tony Harris, Tony Holmes (ISP), William Drake (NCUC), Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli, Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, (RC) Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (RyC) (two votes each) Absent Councillors: Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette (IPC), Greg Ruth (ISP), Mary Wong, Carlos Souza (NCUC), Adrian Kinderis (RC). Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org