[council] RE: CORRECTION Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

* On the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery I vote:
* [x] Yes
* [ ] No
* [ ] Abstain
* Password: violet 9

Completed ballots are due NLT  16:10 UTC, Sunday, 10 May 2009.
(12:10 EDT, 13:10 Buenos Aires, 17:10 London, 18:10 Brussels/Geneva, 00:10 
HongKong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 11 May 2009)


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);

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:

(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:

. 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.

Thank you.
Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org
tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44
Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27
Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54
Blackberry email: gnso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx