I have been loosely following this WG (mainly by lurking on the email list), and I agree with both of Tim's conclusions. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:51 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] Questions for Council from IRTP-B WG During the last IRTP-B PDP WG meeting the following two issues came up and I was asked to verify/clarify with Council: 1. The wording of the charter and charter questions for IRTP-B does not explicitly state that the WG may make "policy" recommendations. The charter states, "The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the issues report and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:" The WG would like to confirm that it is within the charter to make actual "policy" recommendations. I believe that was intended since this is an actual PDP. 2. In discussions of questions a) and b) (see below) the WG feels that the issue raised in number 8 of IRTP-D (see below) may come into play. Is it acceptable if resultant recommendations from IRTP-B touch on or even address number 8 of IRTP-D? I believe it is. The previous PDP for IRTP-A resulted in recommendations to push a couple of issues off as more appropriate for a later PDP. I see no reason for the reverse not to happen when appropriate. Please let me know if there is any disagreement with either of the above conclusions on my part, or if you feel more than a list discussion is necessary before responding to the WG. REFERENCES: Questions a) and b) of the IRTP-B charter: 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; Complete IRTP-B charter is near the bottom of the IRTP-B WG wiki: https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi Number 8 of IRTP-D: 8. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred. IRTP Issues PDP Recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar... Tim