Re: [council] PEDNR Motion

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim, please note that the recommendation you quoted from the Issues Report 
specifically relates to 'the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request', 
some of which go beyond the issues recommended for a PDP. As noted by Alan, the 
drafting team and staff did discuss whether a pre-PDP WG would be appropriate, 
but agreed that further research and consultation could be done as part of a 
PDP as the issues recommended for inclusion in a PDP have been narrowly 
defined. As stated in the motion, the drafting team does believe it is 
important to highlight in the charter that the outcomes of a PDP are not 
limited to recommended changes to consensus policy, but could also include 
recommendations regarding e.g. best practices, compliance, possible RAA changes 
or further dialogue.

On a different note, but related to the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery 
Issues Report, I would like to draw your attention to a deletion and renewal 
consensus policy audit in relation to the Expired Domain Deletion Consensus 
Policy that was carried out by the ICANN's compliance team recently (see 
further details attached). Follow-up audit activity is being carried out as a 
result of the non-compliance identified in the audit. As a result of this 
follow-up, the compliance team estimates that the number of non-compliant 
registrars is about 30-40% less today then when the report was published.

With best regards,

Marika

On 4/2/09 5:11 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



The drafting team did discuss this. The conclusion was (and staff
concurred if I remember correctly) that any further consultation
could reasonably be done as part of the PDP. We also talked about a
public forum in Sydney, the exact contents of which would depend on
how far along the WG (presuming we use a WG) had gotten.

I guess the question came down to whether we felt that some policy
development and non-policy recommendations were required regardless,
and whether the outcomes of pre-PDP consultation would change the
details of the recommendations to be put in a PDP charter. The answer
to the first question was yes, we did feel that PDP action was
required, and we did not think that the specific recommendations
would change. How a WG addresses the issues may well change, but
since it did not appear that the results of such consultation would
alter the PDP charter, there did not seem to be any reason to delay.

Although not discussed, I would envision a call for input on some
targeted questins as an early part of the process.

Alan

At 01/04/2009 06:09 PM, you wrote:

>I was re-reading the issues report and was reminded of this Staff
>recommendation:
>
>"In relation to the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request,
>ICANN staff notes that
>while most, if not all, outcomes might be achieved by the
>recommendations identified by the
>ALAC, it would be helpful for all parties concerned to engage in a more
>fulsome dialogue on
>the extent and detailed nature of the concerns to determine whether
>these are shared
>desired outcomes and if so, how these could best be addressed in policy
>work going
>forward, including a more robust discussion of the merits and drawbacks
>of various solutions
>to address agreed concerns. The GNSO Council might consider such an
>activity, which
>could take the form of one or more public workshops at an upcoming ICANN
>meeting, for
>example, as a precursor for the launch of a PDP as it would help to
>define and focus the
>policy development process on one or more specific proposed changes.
>While this could
>also be explored by a working group following the launch of a PDP, staff
>recommends
>further fact finding first to figure out what policy options might
>exist, and then conduct a PDP
>to assess the impact of those policy options and confirm community
>support for a preferred
>policy choice."
>
>I don't recall that we discussed whether we should follow this advice or
>not. Alan, is there
>a reason why your motion initiates a PDP instead of the fact finding
>that the Staff suggests
>be done first?
>
>
>Tim

--- Begin Message ---

• To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Results of Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy Audit by ICANN Compliance Department
• From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:34:12 -0700
• Sender: "owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
• Thread-index: AcmjFzqh28wtUAngEUCfRscpoynR/g==
• Thread-topic: [gnso-pednr-dt] Results of Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy Audit by ICANN Compliance Department

Dear All,

For your information, ICANN’s compliance team recently carried out a deletion 
and renewal consensus policy audit in relation to the Expired Domain Deletion 
Consensus Policy, which closely relates to some of the issues raised in the 
context of the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. You will 
find the relevant section of the Contractual Compliance semi-annual report 
below. The complete version of the report can be found here: 
http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/contractual-compliance-report-27feb09-en.pdf.

I have been informed by our compliance team that follow-up audit activity is 
being carried out as a result of the non-compliance identified. As a result of 
this follow-up, the compliance team estimates that the number of non-compliant 
registrars is about 30-40% less today then when the report was published.

With best regards,

Marika

=========

>From Contractual Compliance Semi-Annual Report
February 2009

4.5 Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy Audit

4.5.1 Executive Summary

ICANN's agreements with accredited registrars and gTLD registry operators 
require that they comply
with various specifically stated procedures and consensus policies. Pertinent 
language from the policy
follows.

The expired domain deletion policy states that, “At the conclusion of the 
registration period, failure by
or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be 
renewed within the
time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of 
extenuating circumstances, result
in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period 
(although Registrar may
choose to cancel the name earlier). Among other requirements, the registrar 
must provide notice to
each new registrant describing the details of their deletion and auto-renewal 
policy including the
expected time at which a non-renewed domain name would be deleted relative to 
the domain’s
expiration date, or a date range not to exceed ten days in length. If a 
registrar makes any material
changes to its deletion policy during the period of the registration agreement, 
it must make at least the
same effort to inform the registrant of the changes as it would to inform the 
registrant of other
material changes to the registration agreement.”

4.5.2 Audit Objective
• To protect the registrants by ensuring they are provided notice of the 
expired name practices of
the registrar with whom they have registered their domain name.
• The primary objective of the audit was to determine which registrars actively 
sponsoring
domains have a statement addressing their Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy 
posted on
their website.

4.5.3 Methodology
ICANN’s Contractual Compliance staff developed a list of all ICANN-accredited 
registrars that were
actively registering domain names. For each registrar listed, ICANN staff 
examined their website to
examine where, if at all, the Deletion and Removal Policy was made available to 
current and potential
registrants.

4.5.4 Findings
A majority of ICANN-accredited registrars provide a notice on the Deletion and 
Removal Policy to
registrants on their website. Table 4-6 provides a brief summary:

4.5.5 Observations
Over 82% of ICANN-accredited registrars actively selling domain names have 
information posted on
their websites that explains what happens if registrants fail to renew their 
domain registration after a
specified amount of time. In most cases, this information was found in the 
legal notices section or the
registration agreement documents posted on registrars’ websites. Figure 4-6 
contains the text posted
by a registrar.

Figure 4-6 Sample Text for Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy

4.5.6 Follow-up Actions
ICANN sent notices to registrars that did not appear to have a statement 
disclosing their Deletion and
Removal Policy posted on their website allowing them to clarify the reasons for 
this and providing
them five business days to post this information. In the next few weeks, staff 
will perform a review of
the websites of those registrars to verify that the information is posted.

--- End Message ---