RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for next meeting on Tuesday 28 July at 18.00 UTC

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Marika,

 

Thank you for leading the ICANN staff initiative to get this important
Working Group up and running. I believe I have read all of the "assigned"
reading since Sydney, and want to compliment staff on a well written issues
report. 

 

In advance of tomorrow's call I did want to comment on one agenda item - the
election of a chair. Having participated in ICANN's second original Working
Group, Working Group B (1999-2000), one of my lessons learned was that some
issues have many sides to it, and there are times that having multiple
co-chairs may be a constructive way forward.  Now my view of a chair is that
it is a thankless administrative job, in which the chair has no more
voice/power than an individual working group participant,  just more
headaches. Therefore, having co-chairs achieves multiple goals: (1) splits
the headaches and work load; (2) provides for greater continuity since most
possible chairs have day jobs; and (3) should minimize the fears of capture
among the group.

 

Therefore perhaps we could just defer the issue of selecting a chair until
the group has a better idea of the group dynamics and financial/personal
motivation of each participant, and allow Alan to continue to serve as
Interim Chair if he does not object?

 

Now in doing my homework for tomorrow's call I actually went back to the
original RGP discussion back in 2002-2003 that talked about the harm
registrants/consumers were experiencing in connection with unintentional
domain name expiration. In the ICANN recommendation there was talk about a
two Stage implementation, Stage 1 where the registrant could recover a name
through the original registrant, and Stage 2 where the registrant could
choose his registrar, see
http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm.  While
Stage 1 was implemented, Stage 2 to my knowledge has never been implemented.

 

Here are some questions I think we need to be asking ourselves in this group
as we begin our work:

 

1)      Should the original registrant of a domain name retain any legal
rights once the original domain name term expires, such that he/she can
recover the domain through a registrar of his/her choice; or can a registrar
through contract supersede such rights to lock that domain name into the
original registrar?

2)      Does the group believe that the RGP should be a consensus policy
legally incorporated into ICANN accredited registrar and registry agreements
for the benefit of registrants;

3)      Should this "protection" flow down through the entire domain name
eco system, much like the terms of the UDRP, or should it only be binding on
registrars, thus leaving their resellers out of the loop?

 

Looking forward to tomorrow's call.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:06 AM
To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for next meeting on Tuesday 28 July
at 18.00 UTC

 

Dear All,

In preparation for the first meeting of the Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery Working Group, please find below the proposed agenda for our call
on Tuesday 28 July at 18.00 UTC. As noted in a previous email, you can find
the recommended materials for review prior to this first meeting on the wiki
(https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/). Please note that I
have also added a copy of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy which is a
consensus policy that was adopted by ICANN in 2004. 

With best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda:

*       Welcome and introduction of WG members 
*       Election of Chair of the Working Group 
*       Overview of PEDNR Issues Report (if required) 
*       Overview of WG Charter and WG processes 
*       Discuss work plan / approach of WG to address charter questions 
*       Public notification of initiation of the PDP (see ICANN by-laws:
'After initiation of the PDP, ICANN shall post a notification of such action
to the Website. A public comment period shall be commenced for the issue for
a period of twenty (20) calendar days after initiation of  the PDP. The
Staff Manager, or some other designated representative of ICANN shall review
the public comments and incorporate them into a report  (the "Public Comment
Report") to be included in [...] the Initial Report'.)