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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Apparently this did not make it to the list, so I 
am resending it again through another mail agent.  Alan
========================

Tim, your expanded text is fine with one major exception.

Under the initial tasks of the WG you have:

"1. 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;"
This limits the study to the period of the RGP. 
In fact, the WG should be looking at the entire 
period following the expiration of a domain name. 
Replacing "during the RGP" by "following expiration" fixes it.
Alan


At 27/05/2009 01:33 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 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.