BC Position on PEDNER Initial Report
BC, Attached is a draft BC Position regarding the Initial Report produced by the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNER) Working Group (WG). Per Marilyn's notice of the Public Comment period for the WG is extended to 15 Aug 2010. Please review and provide feedback or support, if any, by 13 Aug 10. I will compile changes and resend a draft out on the 14th for posting on the 15th. The other BC WG participants have not had much of a chance to review this prior to this notice, so I invite them to comment where I may have misstated something. This draft does not stray from our previous position statement of November 2009, but it does offer refinement to areas being considered for Consensus Policy (CP) with respect to expiration phase of a domain lifecycle. I do not suspect much opposition regarding this PDP topic within the BC, but if you do have concerns, please voice them. Specifically, we require refinement to concepts #8 through #12 & #18. When reviewing the document take notice of the highlighted text, as it denotes what I suspect to be areas we need to seek agreement. Key take-away(s) of PEDNER WG to this point: . BP vs. CP - many of the concepts discussed within the PEDNER WG equally contend with the issue of whether change should be considered a non-binding "Best Practice" instead of a "Consensus Policy" change where by agreements with Contracted parties require modification. . Largest potential change with respect to Redemption Grace Period (RGP) becoming Consensus Policy. Consistency is the primary driver for this change. The chair of the GNSO, and as one of the contributors to RGP is on record having difficulty understanding why it was not created as Consensus Policy at inception. To date, clear consensus on RGP is visible among the non-contracted parties and perhaps a few in the contracted party house. . Other potential CP changes: o Ability to recover a domain (CP) with a time to recover somewhere around 1 month o Notice of expiration prior should occur at least twice (CP), minimum intervals and how they are to be sent o Post-Expiration notices and other warnings (CP) o Clarification within WHOIS status changes regarding expired domains o Web and Email hosting services going Dark upon expiration (CP) o Clarity in Agreements and Post Expiration fees (CP) o Ability to transfer in an expired state & RGP (CP) . Registrant education, perhaps sponsored by ICANN, is critical to reduce the consumer confusion PEDNER - Social Text site: https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi BC Members of WG: . Mike Rodenbaugh - poll contributor . Phil Corwin . Mike O'Connor - poll contributor . Michael Palage . Berry Cobb - poll contributor Please advise if you have questions. Thank you, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC berrycobb@infinityportals.com http://infinityportals.com 720.839.5735
Berry, thanks for some excellent work on this. I support the position with the following changes. Clarity I believe the outside world will find difficulty in distinguishing between BC WG members in a minority and a BC position. We need some clarity here. Let me try. The WG model allows anyone to join. There will be members of the WG who happen to be BC members but who do not claim to represent the BC. Their view should not appear in a BC paper. (General point for the BC EXCOMM: The BC should have an internal process to distinguish its delegates to a WG from any one else who happens to join a WG). Regardless of the existence of the WG, what we are now writing is a BC position paper. So in any case we should delete any references to the views of the BC members on the WG. (If the views of BC members on the WG are informative put that in an internal BC email and say who is saying what.) Hope this helps. Philip
participants (2)
-
Berry Cobb -
Philip Sheppard