|
Dear Councillors, In preparation for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 7 May
2009 at 14:00 UTC, please find the two proposed motions before Council.
Kind regards, Glen Motion 1. 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 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. Friendly amendment proposed by Tim Ruiz to replace the first
paragraph of the ‘RESOLVE’ section to the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion 2. Motion on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois
Service Tools Made by: Avri Doria Seconded by: Chuck Gomes Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the
adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions
to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements, and, there have been questions as to the adequacy of these
tools for use in an IDN environment, and, that there have been extensive discussions about the
requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and Registrar
operations, and, new architectures and tools have been developed and
suggested by the technical community, Resolved, The GNSO Council requests that Policy Staff, with the
assistance of technical staff as required, collect and organize a comprehensive
set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools. These requirements
should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but
should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various
policy initiatives such as tiered services and privacy protection. The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation
with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC and the ccNSO and (a strawman proposal should be
prepared for these consultation. The Staff is asked to come back with an
estimate of when this would be possible.) should be ready for community
discussion in time for the Sydney meeting. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://gnso.icann.org |