[council] IRTP next steps - ACTION ITEM

Darcy Southwell darcy.southwell at endurance.com
Fri Apr 6 05:03:34 UTC 2018

Thanks, Heather.


At the moment, the PPSAI IRT is scheduled to go to public comment in late April or early May, which is when it will then begin work on the IRTP-C issue.  As a refresher, the issue referred to the IRT relates to whether the addition/removal of a privacy/proxy service potentially triggers the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock described in the updated Transfer Policy. The policy recommendations were silent with respect to the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services.  It seems as though staff should wait to deliver its post-implementation status report after the IRT has made recommendations regarding the IRTP-C issue in order for the report to be complete. 


Even with a staff report by May 1, as Jennifer Gore suggested in Puerto Rico, given the Council’s desire to make the policy development process more effective and efficient, and given the significantly broad scope of the four parts of the IRTP, it makes sense to at least ascertain whether we can expect a solution to immediate IRTP-C problem before embarking on a review.  The IRTP review is important.  But it needs to be well thought out in order to avoid some of the pitfalls we’ve seen recently with PDPs/review.





From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 6:49 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] IRTP next steps - ACTION ITEM


Dear Council colleagues,


A reminder that one of the Action Items coming out of ICANN61 was:


Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)


Action Item:
GNSO Council to consider next steps, timing and provide guidance to ICANN Org on if, how, and when the review of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) should take place, factoring in ongoing discussion on the post-implementation policy review framework as well as the transfer issue that is being considered by the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team.

Jennifer Gore kindly requested our follow-up on the proposal presented at our March Council meeting. There is a clearly articulated connection to PPSAI IRT, which Darcy has put on Council's April agenda. From a logistical perspective, it seems sensible to put PPSAI IRT before IRTP on our April agenda, so that any direction from Council to PPSAI takes into account Darcy's update (also supported by her post to the Council list of 3 April). Please could you give specific thought to IRTP with a view to Council providing Jen Gore with guidance as soon as is practicable?


Many thanks and best wishes,



_______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180405/d3c3ae6d/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list