[bc-gnso] proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]
- To: bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] proposed BC comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B Recommendations [FOR REPLY BY 13-FEB]
- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:26:11 +0000
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
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
and compared changes to the WG's May-2011 report we endorsed last year
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
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.
Steve DelBianco and Phil Corwin
From: Steve DelBianco
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:16:54 -0400
Cc: "'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx> GNSO list'"
Subject: Business Constituency comment on Board Consideration of IRTP-B
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
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
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