[council] IRTP next steps - ACTION ITEM
pam.little at alibaba-inc.com
Fri Apr 6 22:53:37 UTC 2018
".. this may be seen are a separate scenario that does not warrant delay of the proposed Post-Implementation Report on the Transfer Policy' - Indeed, that was my assumption when staff proposed the status report back in February.
The issue is not new and the Council has been closely involved in the Board resolution to defer compliance enforcement (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-02-03-en#1.h) and the subsequent referral to the PPSAI IRT (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201711 - 20171130-2).
So unless I am missing something, I do not see why it should affect the status report. As Caitlan pointed out, receipt of the report by the Council would not preclude the Council from deciding when and how to conduct the actual review of the Transfer Policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------Sender:Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen at icann.org>Sent at:2018 Apr 7 (Sat) 02:22To:Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>Subject:Re: [council] IRTP next steps - ACTION ITEM
Dear Darcy, Thank you for flagging the issue of whether the addition/removal of a privacy of proxy service qualifies as a Change of Registrant under the Transfer Policy, thereby triggering the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock. As you noted, the policy recommendation for inter-registrant transfers was silent with respect to the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services qualifying as a Change of Registrant. We are unclear at this juncture whether the updated policy language, if any, would be included in Transfer Policy, Privacy and Proxy Accreditation Policy, or a combination thereof. Because the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy recommendations do not reference transfers involving privacy/proxy registrations, this may be seen are a separate scenario that does not warrant delay of the proposed Post-Implementation Report on the Transfer Policy. We note receipt of the report by the Council would not preclude the Council from deciding to postpone the ultimate review of the Transfer Policy. However, if the Council wishes to pause receipt of the Post-Implementation Report until the resolution of the above-referenced issue, please do let us know. We are happy to assist either way. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin  Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part C Policy Development Process, Recommendation 1. From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Darcy Southwell <darcy.southwell at endurance.com>
Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 10:05 PM
To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] IRTP next steps - ACTION ITEM 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. Thanks,Darcy 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, Heather_______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
 Final Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part C Policy Development Process, Recommendation 1.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council