[council] GNSO Council resolutions 7 May 2009

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors



Ahead of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed by 
the GNSO Council at the meeting on 7 May 2009.



The final voting results on the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, 
proposed by Avri Doria, and seconded by Chuck Gomes will be published at the 
end of the absentee voting period which closes on Sunday 10 May at 16:10 UTC.



Motion I

Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery proposed by Avri Doria and 
seconded by Chuck Gomes



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.





-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion 2



Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois Service Tools



Avri Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the following motion. Friendly 
amendments were accepted.



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,



and, the GNSO accepted the recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group to 
encourage staff to explore further assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable 
option for the exchange of registrant email address data between registrars and 
conduct an analysis of IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness 
for IRTP purposes,



Resolved,



The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical 
staff and GNSO Council members 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 that have been suggested in the past.



The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, 
ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared 
for these consultations. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of 
when this would be possible.



Motion passed by voice vote.
One 'nay vote' was heard.



Present at the time of voting: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, 
Kristina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Terry 
Davis, Avri Doria, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon 
Chung, Chuck Gomes.



Absent at the time of the vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Adrian 
Kinderis, Olga Cavalli.



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org