Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Further information for our call later today
- To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Further information for our call later today
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:14:15 -0400
I think that given the motion, this is a formal as it needs to be for
a Draft Team to draft a charter that has then to be voted on. I also
see no reason not to begin the research phase. Though I do recommend
concentrating on the charter so it can be completed and approved as
soon as possible. While it was theoretically possible that it could
have even been ready for these weeks meeting, had the DT been
hyperactive, it can certainly be prepared in the next two weeks if the
Dt wishes. If the DT thinks it can be ready that quickly and wants
to, I can put it on the agenda for the public meeting 24 June.
We can talk about this during today's meeting.
On 27 May 2009, at 09:25, Alan Greenberg wrote:
My preference is to start putting together the WG immediately, to
allow at least some people to meet with ICANN compliance staff in
Sydney and discuss what further information is needed. This could be
completely informal unless you can see your way to doing something
during tomorrow's meeting to make this more formal.
As previously noted, I will not likely be able to joint the meeting.
At 27/05/2009 09:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
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
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
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
vote on. Being able to do so in Sydney or at the meeting right
after, would be good.
thanks for asking.
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.
At 27/05/2009 03:27 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
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
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
With best regards,
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
(DT) to consider the form of policy development action in regard to
Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed
documented in the Issues Report;
Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information
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
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
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
instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy;
that to inform its work it should pursue the availability of
information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current
provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal,
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
- Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration
clear and conspicuous enough;
- Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming
- Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate
that once a
domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired
status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to
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
registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into the
charter of the
IRTP Part C charter.