[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] FW: [council] IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

For your information. The GNSO Council is expected to consider this motion at 
its next meeting on 21 July.

With best regards,

Marika

From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:54:44 -0700
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3

As we decided at our meeting in Singapore, I am making the following
motion (attached as a PDF). Marika, thank you for drafting it and for
the reminders.

Thanks,
Tim

Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue
Report on �Thick� WHOIS)

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development
Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter
questions:

a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name
should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking
report�(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf);
see also
(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);

b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are
needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and
Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule
the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of
the registrar;

c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when
it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not
currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in
hijacking cases;

d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding
use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should
not be applied);

e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain
name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a
readily�accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name
Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the
Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the
recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these
recommendations;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to
�consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of
an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent
gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July�.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement
of �thick� WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue
Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not
only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent
gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other
positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of
IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a
requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable
or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)

Attachment: IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3.pdf
Description: IRTP Part B Motion - Recommendation #3.pdf