RE: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B .. Proposals etc

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I echo Mikey's concerns on both points, and particularly wrt Rec #9.  It seems 
as if some registrars are trying to reserve the right to deny transfers 
whenever their clever lawyers can think of a reason, even if such reason is not 
specified in the IRTP.  That would seem to eviscerate the entire point of the 
IRTP, or am I missing something?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: 
Blacknight
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:27 AM
To: Gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP B .. Proposals etc


Dear All

It's great seeing some healthy discussions on the mailing list, so before 
jumping ahead and setting up any new calls, I'd like to encourage others to 
express their views on the mailing list. 

As a reminder, please note that the recommendations as resolved by the GNSO 
Council in relation to these two issues are as follows:

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.

Also note that Staff is planning to put out these proposals for community 
input, so even if the WG is not able to reach a common position on the 
proposals, individual members will have an opportunity to share their views as 
part of the public comment forum. 

I'm sure Staff is also reviewing these comments and will try to address these 
in the best way possible. 

I'd also like to remind you that an IRTP Update has been scheduled to take 
place at the ICANN meeting in Dakar on Thursday from 10.00 – 11.30 (see 
http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27007) during which you will have another 
opportunity to share your views.

Regards

Michele



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.biz
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty 
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845