Your feedback on upcoming GNSO motions/actions

[Robin Gross]

Thanks Mary!  See comment below on Post-Expiration Domain Name  
Recovery PDP Motion.

On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Mary Wong wrote:

> [...]
>
> ** 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.


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 Issues Report on  
the matter, so I guess that will have to come out in the PDP process.

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.

Thanks again,
Robin


Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development  
Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team) (10 mins)

Proposed Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

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 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.

Specifically, consideration of 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.









IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20090324/2c05e251/attachment.html>