Versions Compared

Old Version 15

changes.mady.by.user de saint gery

Saved on

compared with

New Version 16

changes.mady.by.user de saint gery

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

4. Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Made by: Jeff Neuman

Seconded by:

 

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

...

Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

 

5. Motion to approve the Charter for the ‘thick’ Whois PDP Working Group

Made by: Jeff Neuman

Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder

Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ‘thick’ Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203);

...

Charter – http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf

6. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations

Made by: Stéphane van Gelder

Seconded by:

WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions:

 

  1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
  2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
  3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

 

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved

 

RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf

 

RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.

 

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely:

 

  • Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
  • Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
  • Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
  • Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
  • Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

7. GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

 Made by: Ching Chiao

Seconded by:

...

RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.