|
Dear
Councillors Ahead
of the official Council minutes, the following resolutions were passed by the
GNSO Council at the meeting on 7 May 2009. The
final voting results on the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery,
proposed by Avri Doria, and seconded by Chuck Gomes will be published at the
end of the absentee voting period which closes on Sunday 10 May at 16:10 UTC. Motion I 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 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, 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 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motion
2 Motion
on Producing Synthesis of Requirements for Whois Service Tools Avri
Doria, seconded by Chuck Gomes proposed the following motion. Friendly
amendments were accepted. 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, and, the GNSO accepted the
recommendation of the IRT-A Working Group to encourage staff to explore further
assessment of whether IRIS would be a viable option for the exchange of
registrant email address data between registrars and conduct an analysis of
IRIS' costs, time of implementation and appropriateness for IRTP purposes, Resolved, The GNSO Council requests
that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council
members 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 that have
been suggested in the past. The synthesis of
requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO
and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared for these
consultations. The Staff is asked to come back with an estimate of when this
would be possible. Motion
passed by voice vote. Present
at the time of voting: Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, Ute Decker, Kristina
Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Terry Davis,
Avri Doria, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung,
Chuck Gomes. Absent
at the time of the vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth, Adrian
Kinderis, Olga Cavalli. Thank
you. Kind
regards, Glen GNSO
Secretariat gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://gnso.icann.org |