Page History
Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Jonathan Robinson
Amended by Adrian Kinderis and Kristina Rosette
Motion 1 on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Final Report and Recommendations
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
...
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.
<ac:structured-macro ac:name="unmigrated-wiki-markup" ac:schema-version="1" ac:macro-id="9b0eb894-9e88-4957-b6ae-58bbc308d4a1"><ac:plain-text-body><![CDATA[ | Resolved | Required Voting Threshold [[1] | https://community.icann.org/#_ftn1] | ]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro> |
RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors: | More than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House ("GNSO Supermajority") | https://community.icann.org/#_ftn2] | ]]></ac:plain-text-body></ac:structured-macro> |
RESOLVED (B), the GNSO Council recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the GNSO Council recommends that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include practical measures that registrants can implement "in house", such as ways to protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system for possible account compromise. The GNSO Council Chair will reach out to the ALAC and other ICANN structures to inform them of this recommendation and discuss how the GNSO may contribute to this promotion. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #2) | Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority |
Resolved (C), the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of IRTP Part B Recommendation #7 and will consider this recommendation when it considers the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. | Simple majority vote of each House |
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. | Simple majority vote of each House |
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. | Simple majority vote of each House |
Resolved (F), the GNSO Council will 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. | Simple majority vote of each House |
RESOLVED (G), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part C, which should include: | At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council of each House or a majority of one House. |
...
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[1]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref1\] As a reminder, the level of support received from the GNSO Council for the recommendation (GNSO Supermajority or no GNSO Supermajority) determines the voting threshold required by the Board to reject a GNSO Council recommendation as outlined in section 13 Board Vote of Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws. |
Wiki Markup |
---|
\[[2]\|https://community.icann.org/#_ftnref2\] In the event that this recommendation is not approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the recommendations would not be considered consensus policy and therefore not be binding on existing contracted parties. \\ |
MOTION 2. RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING
Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
...
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council shall take formal action on these recommendations, including potential modification, as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public comment period.
Motion 3 on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations - For discussion only
Whereas on 7 May 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) addressing the following five charter questions:
...