[council] Another Friendly Amendment to the IRTP-B Motion

[Tim Ruiz]

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 at godaddy.com>
> Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:47 pm
> To: council at 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
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110620/94072917/attachment.html>