Alan Greenberg wrote:
At its October 14th teleconference, the ALAC voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. Details can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?recovery_of_expired_domain_names. An Issues Report is the first step in a possible Policy Development Process. This is a a real shame of a missed opportunity.
In the email thread that discussed this issue before the ALAC meeting was held, there was a suggestion that this matter not be put through the Issues Report / PGP process, but rather that ALAC create its own investigation and use its own mechanisms to bring the matter directly to the attention of the Board. The IR/PGP process is (or at least appears to be) a structure imposed on GNSO, not ALAC. We exist supposedly to _directly_ advise the Board (indeed other ICANN bodies) and are able to choose whatever internal process we require to develop such advice.
The ALAC formed a small Working Group. According to the motion "The working group may include representatives from At-Large, GNSO constituencies and other interested individuals but due to tight time constraints, will be limited to those with specific knowledge of the subject being discussed." If anyone else would like to participate, please let me know.
I propose that the Working Group prepare a submission aimed not at GNSO, but directly at the Board with the intention of its driving both staff and volunteers to investigate this issue. I fully understand the advantages of having GNSO onside with our requests, but that should be a result -- not a requirement -- of our introduction of this issue to the Board. The GNSO contains the ICANN constituencies that propagate what we are claiming to be public harm, and cannot (and should not) be counted upon to give us complete support. But that is not a problem (in my opinion) if we exploit ALAC's unique level of access. If we need to GNSO's blessing every time we want to advance an issue, then why should ALAC exist as a separate body rather than just have as many ALSs as possible join NCUC? The ALAC review has made much of our "special" nature, that we have the ability to advocate user concerns directly to the Board without them needing to be vetted by other constituencies. Indeed this special quality has been used to justify keeping At-Large from having a designated position on the Board. So why doesn't ALAC grow up, use the tools at its disposal, and stop asking for GNSO to hold our collective hand on every major issue? Maybe there's some significance that the suggestion to bypass the IR/PGP process comes from RALOs (Carlton and myself) and not from within ALAC proper. But I suggest that maturity and self-confidence will not be bequeathed on ALAC, it will have to achieve and assert those qualities on its own,
I am also formally calling for statements of support for this initiatives from ALSs and RALOs. Statements need not be long. Was this long enough? ;-)
Lastly, if people can send me concise descriptions of situations where a domain name had inadvertently been allowed to expire, telling what happened, that would be very useful. Unfortunately, I cannot help much in this regard. The domains I own are done through a certain Canadian registrar -- with an animal-type name -- which has treated such circumstances admirably, (putting them in a locked-down limbo for a period after expiry and giving the owner a final chance for renewal before the domain goes up for grabs).
- Evan