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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.
 
 Tim 
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RESEND: [gnso-pednr-dt] Further information for our call later
today
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, June 03, 2009 1:33 pm
To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@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 Â&shy; 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.