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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Alan. Attached is another version, very similar to yours. Except
it incorporates the actual motion that initiated the PDP.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Further information for our call later 
today
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 27, 2009 11:59 am
To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>

Sorry this is so late, but I have been in meets all day.  Here is a
first cut on a motion and charter that I think matches the GNSO decision
to launch a PDP.

I don't know if the WG rules boilerplate is current or not.

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.

Attachment: PEDNR_WG_Charter_v2.doc
Description: MS-Word document