Yes. Do you need me to resubmit the motions? -----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Fri 1/13/2012 12:12 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Mason Cole; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting Mason, are you OK with doing that? Stéphane Le 12 janv. 2012 à 00:00, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : Easiest fix is to take out that whereas clause (since we are trying to cut down on those anyway). Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:38 AM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: Mason Cole; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting Thanks Jeff. Can you suggest a FA please? Stéphane Le 11 janv. 2012 à 14:11, Neuman, Jeff a écrit : I will second, but just ask that we change the Whearas clauses to acknowledge the comments received by the IPC (even if past the due date). Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:54 AM To: Mason Cole Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Motions for next week's meeting Thanks Mason for making these. Are there seconds for these motions? Glen, please upload them to the wiki. Thanks. Stéphane Le 10 janv. 2012 à 19:57, Mason Cole a écrit : 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).