[council] IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Tue Jul 12 11:16:45 UTC 2011

Thanks Tim. I second the motion.

It will be added to the wiki and has been included in our agenda.


Le 11 juil. 2011 à 18:54, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> As we decided at our meeting in Singapore, I am making the following
> motion (attached as a PDF). Marika, thank you for drafting it and for
> the reminders.
> Thanks, 
> Tim
> Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue
> Report on �Thick� WHOIS)
> 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 the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these
> recommendations;
> WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to
> �consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of
> an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent
> gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July�.
> RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement
> of �thick� WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue
> Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not
> only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent
> gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other
> positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of
> IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a
> requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable
> or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)
> <IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3.pdf>

More information about the council mailing list