RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Part B Working Meeting on Tuesday 27 September at 14.00 UTC

["Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The two proposals seem fine from my perspective and in line with the WG
recommendations.

 

The call proposed on the 27th works for my schedule.  See you all then.

 

 

Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:08 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Part B Working Meeting on Tuesday 27
September at 14.00 UTC

 

Dear All,

 

Michele has requested that the IRTP Part B Working Group reconvenes to
discuss the attached proposals on Tuesday 27 September at 14.00 UTC (please
let me know if this time/day does not work for you). For those of you that
have not done so yet, please feel free to share your views, comments and /or
questions with the mailing list. If there are any questions you have for
staff who have been involved in preparing these proposals, please share
these prior to the call so I can take these back and hopefully provide you
with an answer during the call itself.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:44:55 -0700
To: "Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] For your review - Draft Proposals IRTP Reason
for Denial #7 and WHOIS Status messages

 

Dear All,

 

Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the following resolved clauses
(see below and http://gnso/resolutions/#201106), you will find attached two
draft proposals prepared by ICANN Staff. Before putting these out for public
comment, we would like to get the feedback of the IRTP Part B Working Group.
Please feel free to share your comments, suggestions and/or questions with
the mailing list. If needed or preferred, we can also schedule a conference
call to discuss in further detail.

 

I look forward to receiving your feedback.

 

With best regards,

 

Marika

 

>From Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and
Recommendations (see http://gnso/resolutions/#201106):

 

RESOLVED (D), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation
which states: "denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision
in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or
unlocked", the GNSO Council requests ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for
such a new provision, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations
in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9
- part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider
whether to approve the recommendation.

RESOLVED (E), prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation
regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding
Registrar Lock status, the GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to provide a
proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed
to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B
WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report).
(IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why
the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the
proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the
recommendation.