[council] Amended Motion for Next Round of IRTP Issues

[Tim Ruiz]

This amended version incorporates Chuck's requested change that I
accepted as friendly (the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section). I
also modified the note as suggested by Marika since that did not involve
anything substantive to the motion itself.

Finally, I added a paragraph at the very end in attempt to address
Marika's request for an extended period of time to prepare the report.
And I even went a step further than she requested in consideration of
everything currently on Staff's plate right now.

Amended Motion:

WHEREAS,
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus
policy under review by the GNSO,

A GNSO group of volunteers assigned five PDP groupings to 19 identified
IRTP issues, based on a previously developed prioritized issues list,

Three additional issues were added to IRTP C based on recommendations
from the IRTP Denial Definitions WG and the Issues Report on
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery,

The IRTP Part A WG has recommended combining the issues outlined under
PDP B and some of the issues outlined under PDP C into one PDP B in
order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the overall timeline for
addressing all the IRTP PDPs,

The GNSO Council retains the option to address the issues outlined below
in one PDP or two separate PDPs following the completion of the issues
report, 

RESOLVED, 
Pursuant to section 1.b of Annex A of ICANN's Bylaws, that the GNSO
Council requests the creation of an issues report on the following
issues:

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).
(Issue #2)

b) Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the
AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the
registrar. (Issue #7)

c) Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near
a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of
registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases. (Issue #9)

d) Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should
not be applied). (Issue #5)

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. (Recommendation from the IRTP Denials WG)

(Note: The issue numbers included above refer to the original numbering 
in the Transfers Working Group list. Issues a to c form the original 
PDP B, while issue d comes from the original PDP C.)

Notwithstanding section 2 of Annex A of the Bylaws, and in 
recognition of Staff's current workload, Council requests that Staff
complete the issues report and delivers it to the Council by 16 May or
reports on its progress by that date with a target date for completion.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IRTP_Motion_for_Next_Round_16Apr2009.txt
Type: text/plain, english
Size: 2757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090416/dee8d15e/IRTP_Motion_for_Next_Round_16Apr2009.txt>