[council] GNSO Council resolutions 24 June 2009

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Ahead of the official Council minutes, the GNSO Council adopted two 
resolutions, one approving a working group charter on Post-Expiration Domain 
Name Recovery and the second initiating a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B.


Motion 1 Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter
Motion made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes

This charter is based on the GNSO Council decision to create a PDP WG to 
recommend best practices and/or consensus policies regarding the issues defined 
in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report 
at:http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf

The full resolution of the Council on 7 May 2009:

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, andrecovery 
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.


Charter

Whereas:
The GNSO council has decided to initiate a PDP on Post-Expiration Domain Name 
Recovery (PEDNR); and

The GNSO council had decided against initiating a Task force as defined in the 
bylaw;

The GNSO Council RESOLVES

To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as 
interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best 
practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information 
as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts 
and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether 
acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC.

The Working Group initially shall:

1. 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 following expiration are 
enforced;

2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle;

3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, 
renewal, and post-expiration recovery.

The Working Group shall then consider the following questions:

1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired 
domain names;

2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are 
clear and conspicuous enough;

3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;

4. 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);

5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the 
Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council.

The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as 
or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy.

Working Group processes:

While the development of Guidelines for Working Group operations are still to 
be developed the following guidelines will apply to this WG:

The WG shall function on the basis of rough consensus, meaning all points of 
view will be discussed until the chair can ascertain that the point of view is 
understood and has been covered. Consensus views should include the names and 
affiliations of those in agreement with that view. Anyone with a minority view 
will be invited to include a discussion in the WG report. Minority report 
should include the names and affiliations of those contributing to the minority 
report. 

In producing the WG report, the chair will be responsible for designating each 
position as having one of the following designations: 

Unanimous consensus position 

Rough consensus position - a position where a small minority disagrees but most 
agree 

Strong support but significant opposition

Minority viewpoint(s) 

If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a 
position by the chair or any other rough consensus call, they can follow these 
steps sequentially : 

1. Send email to the chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is 
believed to be in error.

2. If the chair still disagrees, forward the appeal to the council liaison(s) 
to the group. The chair must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

* If the liaisons support the chair's position, forward the appeal to the 
council. The liaison(s) must explain his or her reasoning in the response.

3. If the council supports the chair and liaison's position, attach a statement 
of the appeal to the board report. 

This statement should include all of the documentation from all steps in the 
appeals process and should include a statement from the council.

The chair, in consultation with the GNSO council liaison(s) is empowered to 
restrict the participation of someone who seriously disrupts the WG. Any such 
restriction will be reviewed by the GNSO council. Generally the participant 
should first be warned privately, and then warned publicly before such a 
restriction is put into place. In extreme circumstances this requirement may be 
bypassed. 

The WG will have an archived mailing list. 
The mailing list will be open for reading by the community. 

All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the 
public.
A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx) with public 
archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/. 

A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found 
athttps://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg
 

If the guidelines for WG processes change during the course of the WG, the WG 
may continue to work under the guidelines active at the time itwas 
(re)chartered or use the new guidelines. 

The council liaisons to the WG will be asked to report on the WG status monthly 
to the council. 

All WG charters must be reviewed by the GNSO council every 6 months for 
renewal. 
Milestones 

WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T 

Initial Report: T + 150 - 170 days 

First comment period ends: T + 170 - 200 days 

Preliminary Final Report: T + 190 - 220 days. 

Note: If the WG decides that a change is needed to the milestone dates, it 
should submit a revised time line to the GNSO council for approval

Motion passed unanimously by show of hands 

Motion 2.
Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar 
Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B

Motion by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded: Chuck Gomes

Whereas:

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy 
under review by the GNSO,

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of 
the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set 
A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008,

The GNSO Council, in order to be more efficient and hopefully reduce the 
overall timeline for addressing all the IRTP PDPs, resolved on 16 April 2009 to 
combine the issues outlined under the original issue set B, addressing three 
issues on undoing IRTP transfers, and some of the issues outlined in issue set 
C, related to registrar lock status into one IRTP Part B,

The GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B was submitted to 
the GNSO Council on 15 May 2009,

The Issues Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy 
Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this 
report, and

The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the 
scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO

Resolved:

The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in Inter Registrar Transfer 
Policy Issues Report Part B.

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements 
of the PDP.

24 Votes in favour:

Philip Sheppard, Zahid Jamil, Mike Rodenbaugh, Kristina Rosette, Ute Decker, 
Cyril Chua, Mary Wong, Carlos Souza, Tony Harris, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Olga 
Cavalli, Terry Davis, Avri Doria (one vote each)

Edmon Chun, Chuck Gomes, Tim Ruiz, Adrian Kinderis, Stéphane van Gelder (two 
votes each)

There are two absentee votes still outstanding: Bill Drake, (one vote) Jordi 
Iparraguirre (two votes) 

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

Kind regards,
Glen

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