Motions 26 March 2009
- Former user (Deleted)
Item 3: Approve GNSO Council minutesGNSO Council minutes 29 January 2009
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06435.html
Item 4: Motion on Users in the GNSO (deferred from Council meeting on 4 March 2009
(Motion withdrawn after lengthy discussion)
Motion proposed by Avri Doria and
seconded by Chuck Gomes
Whereas:
On 11 December 2008, The ICANN Board of Directors requested a report on the future involvement of users in the GNSO, and
On 29 January 2009, the GNSO council resolved to identify user representatives, especially individual users, who would be willing to work with the ALAC and At- Large community to develop a recommendation, and
On 20 February, 2009, Alan Greenberg on behalf of the working group convened by ALAC and the GNSO Council sent a report on the Board's request relating to User Involvement in the GNSO. This report can be found at:
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-alac-to-icann-board-20feb09-en.pdf
Resolved:
The GNSO Council endorses the report submitted on behalf of the Working Group convened by the ALAC and GNSO Council on User Involvement in the GNSO.
Item 5 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP)
Proposed Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part A Policy Development Process (PDP)
Motion by: Mike Rodenbaugh
Seconded by: Chuck Gomes
Whereas:
On 25 June 2008, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on three "new" issues identified by the Transfers Working Group in 2008 addressing
(1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars,
(2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing," and
(3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars;
Whereas this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 19 March 2009;
Whereas the IRTP Part A WG has reached consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;
Whereas these recommendations do not include any proposals for changes to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, but do recommend that the GNSO Council:
(1) Carry out an 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;
(2) Suggest that future IRTP working groups consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact; and,
(3) Clarify that the current bulk transfer provisions also apply to a bulk transfer of domain names in only one gTLD.
Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;
The GNSO Council RESOLVES:
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.
To include in future IRTP working groups the issue of the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact.
Recommends that ICANN staff communicate to registries and registrars that the current bulk transfer provisions do apply to cases requiring the transfer of all names in one single gTLD under management of a registrar.
Footnote:
From the Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars: 'Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one Registrar as the result of
(i) acquisition of that Registrar or its assets by another Registrar, or
(ii) lack of accreditation of that Registrar or lack of its authorization with the Registry Operator, may be made according to the following procedure:(a) The gaining Registrar must be accredited by ICANN for the Registry TLD and must have in effect a Registry-Registrar Agreement with Registry Operator for the Registry TLD.
(b) ICANN must certify in writing to Registry Operator that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the actual or imminent business failure of a Registrar.
Upon satisfaction of these two conditions, the Registry Operator will make the necessary one-time changes in the Registry database for no charge, for transfers involving 50,000 name registrations or fewer. If the transfer involves registrations of more than 50,000 names, Registry Operator will charge the gaining Registrar a one-time flat fee of US$ 50,000.'
Item 7: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP) decision (Alan Greenberg/Drafting Team)
Motion by: Avri Doria
Seconded by:
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.