[gnso-irtp-b-jun09] IRTP Part B - Proposed Way Forward
Dear All, Now that everyone has hopefully recovered from the ICANN meeting in Dakar, I would like to return to the discussion on the updated IRTP Part B proposals that were circulated by staff and the subsequent comments made. In summary, the following positions have been expressed (please forgive me if I have mischaracterized the points made): With regard to recommendation #8 (Clarifying Whois Status messages): * Support for the Staff proposal and preferred approach vs. further consideration needs to be given to the two options as outlined in the Staff Proposal With regard to recommendation #9 (Locking/unlocking domain names): * Need to strike a delicate balance between registrant transfer abilities and some reasonable prudence on the part of registrars vs. avoiding registrar-imposed legal requirements into this policy -- that's effectively opening the door for registrars to block just about any transfer Proposed way forward: 1. All those that have not weighed in are encouraged to share their views on the mailing list and/or make concrete suggestions how to improve the latest version of the proposals (see attached). To tighten up the language for recommendation #9, we would propose to replace the initial suggested wording 'The registrar may still be permitted or required to restrict some registration changes or transfers pursuant to the UDRP or other ICANN consensus policies or legal requirements' with 'Subject to ICANN specifications or policies and any applicable laws or regulations, Registrars must follow the requirements set forth below' which would be inserted at the beginning of the section 5. Those that have expressed concerns with regards to ensuring 'reasonable prudence on the part of registrars' are encouraged to suggest additional language to cover those specific situations that are not already covered under the existing IRTP Reasons for Denial, but which at the same time would not create a loophole that would allow the registrar to keep a name locked solely at its discretion. 2. Update staff proposals, if needed, based on further comments / suggestions received. 3. Put the proposals out for public comment to allow everyone to express their views on the staff proposals. 4. Review comments received, update proposals accordingly, if needed, and submit these to the GNSO Council for consideration. As always, please feel free to share your views and/or suggestions. If this approach is acceptable, I would like to encourage everyone to share their views / comments / suggestions (as described in step 1) at the latest by Friday 18 November. With best regards, Marika -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-irtp-b-jun09@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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 Attachment:
binZdrAP0ZXpQ.bin Attachment:
IRTP Recommendation#1468480.doc Attachment:
binj3oJBR7PqQ.bin Attachment:
IRTP Reason for Den#144780C.doc
|