[council] Re: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy

[James M. Bladel]

Thanks, Darcy, for raising this motion.

Councilors – as we discussed in Hyderabad, this request is coming from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, regarding the implementation of a very narrow element of IRTP-C. ICANN GDD Staff has indicated that they do not have the ability to agree to this request, absent a request from the GNSO Council and direction by the ICANN Board.

Question for the Council:  are there any questions or concerns on this topic, or is this relatively non-controversial?  If the latter, then I would ask that we consider the short time frame before the Board’s next meeting (8 DEC) and ask if we can proceed without a formal motion and submit the letter.

Interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thanks—

J.


From: <owner-council at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 17:41
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy

All,

Attached is the Motion – GNSO Council Communication to ICANN Board Regarding Transfer Policy along with a proposed draft communication.  You will recall from our meetings in Hyderabad that ICANN GDD staff advised us that Council would need to submit this issue to the Board for consideration and further direction to ICANN staff.  This motion and the draft communication were prepared based on that advice, and I’d appreciate this being heard at our December 1 meeting.

Best,
Darcy
__________
Darcy Southwell | Compliance Officer
M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart
[ttps://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tjCmzaF_7ZGN1PtB2KAV5OVQn-Q_Xvh_p3zhRf5gB5-ISEZOkC_6lvGj1xU-T1CFq]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20161122/2063e4c5/attachment.html>