[bc-gnso] ANNOUNCEMENT: Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents Its Proposed Final Report

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear BC Members:
Several of our BC members have been working on this WG and have deep expertise 
in its implications. It has significant 
implications for any registrant who has a large, small, or 'mini' portfolio of 
domain names. It is increasingly complicated to 
manage a number of names, and with the challenges that registrants face of 
having to recover cyber squatted versions of 
their brand name, they often end up with a mixed bag of registrars, rather than 
a single unified registrar supported registration
process. There are many other reasons why a transfer might be needed. The point 
is that certainty and clarity of process are important to business users/and 
all registrants.  
 
I know we have some real experts on this Report on the BC and will leave the 
detailed comments to them regarding why PENDR matters to business users, and 
what kind of supporting comments, or clarifying comments are needed.   Please 
note that the Report is open for Public Comment.  
 
Marilyn Cade
BC Chair
 
==================================================================================

 Subject: . Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group 
Presents Its Proposed Final Report
 
 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21feb11-en.htm
 Public Comment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Presents 
Its Proposed Final Report
 
 Your Input Requested on Fourteen (14) Recommendations
 
21 February 2011> 
 The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development 
Process Working Group was tasked to address questions in relation to what 
extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they 
expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, 
transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate. Following review of 
the comments received on its Initial Report and further deliberations, the 
Working Group now presents its Proposed Final Report, which contains fourteen 
(14) recommendations to address the five charter questions it was assigned. 
Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its 
consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input on the proposed Final 
Report, especially the proposed recommendations. The public comment forum will 
be open for 45 days (until 7 April 2011).
> 
> For those interested, the PEDNR Working Group will present its report and 
> proposed recommendations at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (see 
> http://svsf40.icann.org/sched-overview for further details).
> The Recommendations (abbreviated version)
 
> The full recommendations including rationales and other comments can be found 
> in the proposed Final Report.
 
> Recommendation #1: Define "Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) to 
> clearly identify the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the 
> domain name registration immediately prior to expiration.
 
> Recommendation #2: Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration when the 
> RNHaE can renew, and disable normal operation during that time to attract the 
> attention of the RNHaE.
 
> Recommendation #3: Changes to WHOIS after expiration must not alter the RNHaE 
> ability to renew.
 
> Recommendation #4: All unsponsored gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption 
> Grace Period (RGP).
 
> Recommendation #5: If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that 
> supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at 
> Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP.
 
> Recommendation #6: Registrar website should state any fee(s) charged for the 
> post-expiration renewal of a domain name.
 
> Recommendation #7: Registrars who have a web presence, shall provide a link 
> to ICANN published web content providing educational materials with respect 
> to registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle.
 
> Recommendation #8: ICANN, with the support of Registrars, ALAC and other 
> interested parties, is to develop educational materials about how to properly 
> steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss.
> 
> Recommendation #9: The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one 
> is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and 
> post-expiration notifications.
> 
> Recommendation #10: Registrar must notify Registered name Holder of impending 
> expiration no less than two times. Subject to an exceptions policy, the 
> timing of such notices is specified.
 
 Recommendation #11: Notifications of impending expiration must include 
method(s) that do not require explicit action other than standard e-mail 
receipt in order to receive such notifications.
 
 Recommendation #12: Unless the Registered Name is deleted by the Registrar, at 
least one notification must be sent after expiration.
 
 Recommendation #13: If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name 
is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path 
to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to 
expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and 
give instructions on how to recover the domain.
 
 Recommendation #14: Best Practice: If post-expiration notifications are 
normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery 
is known to have been interrupted by post-expiration actions, post-expiration 
notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the 
registrant if one exists.
 
 Deadline and how to submit comments
 Comments are welcome via e-mail to pednr-proposed-final-report@xxxxxxxxx until 
7 April 2011.
 
 Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be 
found at: 
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201104-en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report
 
 An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-proposed-final-report/
 
 Further information:
 
 * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB]
 * PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report - Executive Summary only [PDF, 376 KB]
 * PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB]
 * PEDNR PDP Initial Report - Executive Summary
 o English [PDF, 128 KB]
 * PEDNR WG workspace
 
 Background
 
 At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory 
Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of 
registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration 
date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council 
on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery 
[PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO 
Council initiated a PDP on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the 
following charter questions:
 
 * Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired 
domain names;
 * Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are 
clear and conspicuous enough;
 * Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;
 * Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a 
domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold 
status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or 
other options to be determined);
 * Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.
 
 The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its 
deliberations in July 2009.
 
 Staff responsible: Marika Konings