[bc-gnso] proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As discussed on our 8-Feb members call and on the BC list, we have an 
opportunity to comment on staff's proposed implementation of recommended 
changes to domain name transfer policies.

Several BC members were very involved in the IRTP-B working group and we 
endorsed the WG Report last year (see our Aug-2011 comment below).

Specifically, this is about IRTP-B Recommendation 9, Part 2.  As explained by 
staff 
(Link<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec9-part2-23jan12-en.htm>) 
the main elements of the proposed modifications are:

  *   Registrar may only impose a lock that would prohibit transfer of the 
domain name if it includes in its registration agreement the terms and 
conditions for imposing such lock and obtains express consent from the 
Registered Name Holder: and

  *   Registrar must remove the "Registrar Lock" status within five (5) 
calendar days of the Registered Name Holder's initial request, if the Registrar 
does not provide facilities for the Registered Name Holder to remove the 
"Registrar Lock" status
Today, Phil Corwin and I reviewed the staff proposal 
(here<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf%20>)
 and compared changes to the WG's May-2011 report we endorsed last year 
(here<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf%20>).
 We found 3 changes proposed by Staff:
On page 6, staff inserted language from the WG report regarding express 
objections to transfers.   Verbatim from the WG report, so this looks good.
On page 7, staff struck language that is replaced by the above change.  Looks 
good.
On page 8, staff inserted language on registrar requirements on setting the 
lock status of domain names.  Phil and I could not find verbatim language in 
the WG Report, but we believe staff's proposed language will appropriately 
implement the policy intended by the WG Report.
Would appreciate some review by anyone more familiar with transfers and locks.
But if we don't hear otherwise by 12-Feb, the BC will submit a comment that 
endorses the Staff Proposal.
Thanks,
Steve DelBianco and Phil Corwin

From: Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:16:54 -0400
To: <irtp-b-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:irtp-b-recommendations@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list'" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Business Constituency comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B 
Recommendations
The Business Constituency (BC) endorses the recommendations made by the IRTP-B 
Working Group and encourages ICANN Board members to vote in favor of the motion 
as drafted.
If Board members have issues which prevent them from supporting the motion, the 
BC urges the Board refer the issue back to the GNSO Council which can ask the 
IRTP-B working group to review the Board's feedback, and perhaps modify 
recommendations where appropriate.
This document was reviewed and approved by BC members in accordance with our 
charter.




________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12