Councilors --
In her initial email, Marika helpfully suggested that the council consider the motion below AND, simultaneously, a motion to approve the charter. I missed the charter portion of her message (entirely my error) and did not include it in my motion.
I would like to add a motion now to approve the charter. I fully realize we are beyond the deadline for motions for next week's meeting, so I will ask the chair now if the deadline can be waived due to this oversight, and I ask the council if anyone would object to this.
I therefore move for the adoption of this additional motion, as follows:
Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG)
Whereas
On [date] the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;
The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.
RESOLVED,
The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.
The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part D 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 Final Issue Report ([include link to Final Issue Report]) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:
IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements
a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants;
Penalties for IRTP Violations
e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
Need for FOAs
f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.
The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.
On Jan 9, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Mason Cole wrote:
Council colleagues --
I move for the adoption of the attached motion during our next council meeting. I would appreciate a second to the motion.
Thank you!
Mason
Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
Whereas
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO;
The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;
The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);
A Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 14 November 2012 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14nov...).;
A Final Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 8 January 2012 (see [include link to Final Issue Report]);
The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO
RESOLVED:
The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D ([include link to Final Issue Report]).
A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.
Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555