Re: [council] Final vote on motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
I plan on asking the DT that put together this motion to begin work on
a proposed WG charter.
If anyone from the council or a substitute from your constituencies
wants to get involved in charter preparation, please let Glen know so
she can add you to the PEDNR DT list.
As it is required by the by-laws, I do plan to introduce a motion
asking whether we wish to handle this PDP in a task force. Assuming
we don't then as per our currently common practice, I will ask the
committee of the whole, i.e. the council, to approve the charter of a
WG. Perhaps, if it can be done properly according to the by-laws, I
will combine these in one motion. But I do want to make sure that
what we do remains within the bounds of the PDP.
On 11 May 2009, at 12:11, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
Absentee voting is closed on the motion on Post-Expiration Domain
Name Recovery, proposed by Avri Doria, and seconded by Chuck Gomes.
The final results are as follows:
25 votes in favour
20 Votes in favour cast during the meeting:
Cyril Chua, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Mike
Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria,
Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi
Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each)
Absentee ballots received from:
5 Votes in favour
Philip Sheppard, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian
Kinderis (two votes)
Absent from voting: Greg Ruth, Tony Holmes (2 votes)
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
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
. 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.
Let me know if you have any questions.