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

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Network Solutions supports the draft proposals, so long as the 5-day
turn-around does not automatically overrule a lock that was put in place
due to some valid legal or administrative process.

 

I will not be available for the 27 September call, but trust in the
judgment of the other registrar reps.

 

Regards, P

 

 Paul A. Diaz 
 Policy & Ethics Manager

 

P 703-668-4961  www.networksolutions.com
<Http://www.networksolutions.com> 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:08 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.