[council] GNSO Council Motions for Thursday, 7 May 2009

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 14:00 
UTC, please find the two proposed motions before Council.

Councillors are requested to coordinate with their respective constituencies to 
be prepared for voting on these motions at the meeting on Thursday.

Please remember that a quorum is required to conduct the Council business.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

Motion 1.
Proposed Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

Motion by: Avri Doria
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on 
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

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 of the 
Task Force or Working Group charged with carrying out this PDP should include a 
mandate to consider both Consensus Policy recommendations as well as 
recommendations regarding best practices, ICANN compliance obligations and 
possible RAA changes, all associated with staff recommendations in the Issues 
Report section 4.2.

Specifically, consideration of 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.

Friendly amendment proposed by Tim Ruiz to replace the first paragraph of the 
'RESOLVE' section to the following:


"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: (i) that it
should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead
of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) 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 (iii) that it should specifically
consider the following questions:"


Avri Doria sent an email to the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery drafting 
team, who drafted the motion, asking whether the amendment could be accepted:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00013.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion 2.
Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois Service Tools

Made by: Avri Doria
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the 
current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support 
existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,

and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an 
IDN environment,

and, that there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the 
Whois service with respect to Registry and Registrar operations,

and, new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the 
technical community,

Resolved,

The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical 
staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for 
the Whois service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the 
known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible 
requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives such as 
tiered services and privacy protection.

The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, 
ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and (a strawman proposal should be prepared for these 
consultation. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this 
would be possible.) should be ready for community discussion in time for the 
Sydney meeting.


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org