[bc-gnso] proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]

[Marilyn Cade]

Steve, Phil, Many thanks for your extraordinary prompt work on this! I will support your recommendation. 
Marilyn CadeBC Member 


From: sdelbianco at netchoice.org
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
CC: psc at vlaw-dc.com
Subject: [bc-gnso] proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:26:11 +0000










As discussed on our 8-Feb members call and on the BC list, we have an opportunity to comment on staff's proposed implementation of recommended changes to domain name transfer policies. 



Several BC members were very involved in the IRTP-B working group and we endorsed the WG Report last year (see our Aug-2011 comment below).



Specifically, this is about IRTP-B Recommendation 9, Part 2.  As explained by staff (Link)
 the main elements of the proposed modifications are:









Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the Registered Name Holder:
 and








Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the "Registrar Lock"
 status









































Today, Phil Corwin and I reviewed the staff proposal (here) and compared changes to the WG's May-2011 report we endorsed last year (here). We
 found 3 changes proposed by Staff: 







On page 6, staff inserted language from the WG report regarding express objections to transfers.   Verbatim from the WG report, so this looks good. 







On page 7, staff struck language that is replaced by the above change.  Looks good.



On page 8, staff inserted language on registrar requirements on setting the lock status of domain names.  Phil and I could not find verbatim language in the WG Report, but we believe staff's proposed language will appropriately implement
 the policy intended by the WG Report.






Would appreciate some review by anyone more familiar with transfers and locks.  




But if we don't hear otherwise by 12-Feb, the BC will submit a comment that endorses the Staff Proposal.

















Thanks,


Steve DelBianco and Phil Corwin
































 


From:
Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>





Date:
Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:16:54 -0400

To: <irtp-b-recommendations at icann.org>

Cc: "'bc-GNSO at icann.org
 GNSO list'" <bc-gnso at icann.org>

Subject: Business Constituency comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations






The Business Constituency (BC) endorses the recommendations made by the IRTP-B Working Group and encourages ICANN
 Board members to vote in favor of the motion as drafted.


If Board members have issues which prevent them from supporting the motion, the
 BC urges the Board refer the issue back to the GNSO Council which can ask the IRTP-B working group to review the Board's feedback, and perhaps modify recommendations where appropriate.


This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our charter.






 


 


 







 















No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12



 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20120209/2cd6d6c9/attachment.html>