RE: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion
I should have said I am proposing it. I consider it friendly and hope that Jonathan, as seconder of the original motion, will find it as friendly as well. Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com> Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm To: council@gnso.icann.org
I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes. The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following:
RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, 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.
RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests 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.
Tim
Thanks Tim. Jonathan, would you accept this as friendly? Glen, please update the wiki with the amended motion if Jonathan accepts it as friendly. Stéphane Le 21 juin 2011 à 04:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I should have said I am proposing it. I consider it friendly and hope that Jonathan, as seconder of the original motion, will find it as friendly as well.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion From: "Tim Ruiz" Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm To: council@gnso.icann.org
I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes. The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following:
RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, 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.
RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests 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.
Tim
Yes. Accepted. Jonathan. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: 21 June 2011 11:12 To: Tim Ruiz Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion Thanks Tim. Jonathan, would you accept this as friendly? Glen, please update the wiki with the amended motion if Jonathan accepts it as friendly. Stéphane Le 21 juin 2011 à 04:52, Tim Ruiz a écrit :
I should have said I am proposing it. I consider it friendly and hope that Jonathan, as seconder of the original motion, will find it as friendly as well.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion From: "Tim Ruiz" Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm To: council@gnso.icann.org
I am making a friendly amendment to the IRTP-B motion that we will be considering Wednesday. Staff has had the motion reviewed by Counsel and they suggest that we clarify Resolves D and E so it is clear that we are not giving prior approval before seeing what Staff develops/proposes. The amendment is to replace Resolves D and E with the following:
RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for such a new provision, 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.
RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests 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.
Tim
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6224 (20110620) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tim Ruiz