Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Further information for our call later today

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I checked with legal counsel on this one before creating the agenda.

We are probably ok as  we did explicitly resolve for a WG to be  
chartered in the PDP motion and got a vote of sufficient threshold.    
This is a wrinkle in the use of absentee ballot with PDP votes, the  
vote that must be taken immediately after during in the same meeting  
cannot be taken immediately after during the same meeting.  This needs  
fixing in the by-laws.
I recommend that once we get to crafting the motion for this that we  
include a line in the whereas section something like:
... as the GNSO council decided to create a WG in order to execute  
this PDP ...
I am checking with legal counsel now on the utility of such a line and  
how it should be worded if it should be included at all.
So yes, in answer to your question, those who are participating in  
this team are asked to draft a charter and a motion for the council to  
vote on.  Being able to do so in Sydney  or at the meeting right  
after, would be good.
thanks for asking.

a.



On 27 May 2009, at 08:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Marika or Avri or Chuck,
>
> At its last meeting, Council voted to initiate a PDP. It did not (as  
> has been past practice) vote on whether to start a Task Force or WG,  
> presumably because some e-mail votes were being solicited (although  
> the outcome was already determined by those votes cast in person). I  
> assumed that tomorrow's agenda would include that decision, but I  
> now see that PEDNR is not even on the agenda.
> Shall we assume that the DT created to do the initial work is now  
> supposed to craft a motion and charter for a WG for decision in  
> Sydney, even though there has not been a formal Council decision to  
> do so? If that is not the case, I don't see what today's meeting is  
> for, but perhaps I am missing something.
> Alan
>
> At 27/05/2009 03:27 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > In preparation for our call later today, please find below the  
> > motion that was adopted by the GNSO Council at its last meeting.  
> > For those of you interested, you can find some examples of recent  
> > WG charters on the following pages that might help inspire the  
> > discussion for the PEDNR WG Charter: https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_working_group 
> >  and  https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?irtp_pdp_a_wg_charter 
> > .
> > In addition to the development of a proposed charter, I am hoping  
> > to get your thoughts and ideas for the programme of the workshop on  
> > Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery that has been scheduled for  
> > Wednesday 24 June from 14.00 – 16.00 in Sydney (see http://syd.icann.org/node/3869) 
> >  to allow for a first exchange of views with the broader community  
> > on these issues and hopefully attract additional people to join the  
> > Working Group.
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Marika
> >
> > ===========
> >
> >
> > Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
> >
> > Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on
> > Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);
> >
> > Whereas on 29 January 2009 the GNSO Council decided to form a  
> > Drafting Team
> > (DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to  
> > PEDNR;
> > Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed  
> > the issues
> > documented in the Issues Report;
> >
> > Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information  
> > gathering
> > may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;
> >
> > Whereas staff has suggested and the DT concurs that the issue of  
> > registrar
> > transfer during the RGP might be better handled during the IRTP  
> > Part C PDP.
> > The GNSO Council RESOLVES
> >
> > To initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the  
> > issues identified
> > in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.
> >
> > The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:
> >
> > that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well  
> > as or
> > instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;
> >
> > that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of further
> > information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA
> > provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal,  
> > and
> > recovery of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and
> >
> > that it should specifically consider the following 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 GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of  
> > possible
> > registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the  
> > charter of the
> > IRTP Part C charter.