I'd like to explain what I believe to be the group's reasoning for not accepting the IPC's proposal. I want to assure Steve and the IPC that we did not gloss over their proposal. It was carefully considered. While the group's work was part of a PDP, the Council created it as a "drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers." As a result, we understood our task to be "clarification" of the existing reasons based on the previous and extensive work already done under this PDP to determine the original intent of each reason, and not one of recommending changes to the policy. The IPC proposed wording, while well reasoned, we believed constituted a change and/or addition to the original intent of those reasons, and therefore a change in the policy. We used the same approach when addressing the other two reasons. While the previous work done under the PDP seemed clear that the majority of stakeholders were in agreement as to the original intent of reasons #8 and #9, that was not so clear regarding reasons #5 and #7. As a result, we felt they would be best considered during one of the upcoming Transfer PDPs. Disclaimer: This is my recollection. Others on the drafting team may recall things differently. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@icann.org> Date: Wed, July 23, 2008 9:36 am To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-trans-pdp@icann.org" <gnso-trans-pdp@icann.org> Dear Council Members, (cc: drafting group list) Attached please find a summary of the public comments outcome of the recent posting for this PDP, for your information and consideration of further steps to take. Very best regards Olof