<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Thanks Mary! See comment below on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP Motion.<div><br><div><div>On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Mary Wong wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div>[...]</div> <div> </div> <div>** 3. Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) for post-expiration domain name expiry - I hope members can provide us with comments and feedback so that the Councillors can determine whether or not to vote to support this.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I think further exploration of this issue and the potential impact to consumers who unintentionally lose their domain name is worth looking into. There isn't much detail or substance in the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-issues-report-18dec08.pdf">Issues Report</a> on the matter, so I guess that will have to come out in the PDP process. </div><div><br></div><div>I also would like to see an exploration of what the *cost* is turning out to be for consumers who end up paying the high prices to get their domain names back from a registrar who they feel may be holding it hostage for a high fee. If there is any way to get some exploration of the costs to consumers into the PDP, it would be all the better of a motion.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again,</div><div>Robin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="5" style="font: 16.0px Arial"><b>Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team) (10 mins)</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="5" style="font: 16.0px Arial"><b>Proposed Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery</b><br> <br> Whereas on 05 December 2008, the GNSO received an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR);<br> <br> 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;<br> <br> Whereas a DT has formed and its members have discussed and reviewed the issues documented in the Issues Report;<br> <br> Whereas the DT has concluded that although some further information gathering may be needed, it should be done under the auspices of a PDP;<br> <br> 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.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 16.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="5" style="font: 16.0px Arial">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.<br> <br> Specifically, consideration of the following questions:<br> <br> • Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names;<br> <br> • Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;<br> <br> • Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations;<br> <br> • 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).<br> <br> • Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.<br> <br> 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.</font></p></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>