[council] Motion to adopt a Charter for IRTP-C PDP WG if formed...

[Tim Ruiz]

Typically, if the motion to initiate a PDP on the ITRP-C issues passes
we would then resolve to form a drafting team to develop a charter or
ask the WG to do it themselves. However, the issues for IRTP-C are very
precise and there is a lot on the table before the Council and Staff.
Therefore, I make the motion that follows below to adopt a charter
directly based on the IRTP-C issues. If the PDP WG, once engaged, deems
it necessary to ask Council for changes, that is certainly their
perogative as always.

BTW, I want to thank Marika for composing both of these motions and
doing her best to keep the Transfers policy review on track.
 
Tim 

--------------

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
(IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG)

Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy
Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)
Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of
fulfilling the requirements of the PDP; 

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as
the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be
initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until
such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed
by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim
chair.

Charter

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in
the Final Issue Report
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and
make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this
function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in
the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the
gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include
a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8
and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and
security.

b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s
should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if
a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer
contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending
adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant
or other registration information may have changed.

c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that
registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working
Group Guidelines
http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Motion-CharterforIRTPPartCWG-12Sep2011.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110913/c1ad28d4/Motion-CharterforIRTPPartCWG-12Sep2011.doc>