All: at the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 the following items have lead to further actions: * Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time: on my request this shall remain on the GNSO agenda. I was asked to come up with a proposal how to handle it. My suggestion is to co-operate with staff (Liz Gasster offered support). One option could be that the Council could also direct the likely forthcoming RAA PDP to include this accessibility element. Timeline is to be checked as to whether a related motion will be disussed at the CR meetings. If this is the case an ISPCP discussion at constituency day in CR only may be too late. Any idea from your side is welcome! * Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois: this was deferred to CR * CR GNSO agenda: was adopted. Topics suggested to be discussed with Board and GAC on Sunday: RAA, IOC/Red Cross names, WhoIs Review Team Final Report The following resolutions were passed: 1. Consent Agenda * Approval that the Recommendations Report<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-...> on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Recommendation 9, part 2 be sent to the ICANN Board. * Approval of the termination of the Open Council Drafting Team. * Approval of new calls for volunteers for the joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG). 2. 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 on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html ); WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html ); 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 updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf). Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich