May 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Mary Wong May 9, 2009

May 9, 2009

* On the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: blue 5 Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong(a)piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

1 0

Travel Support Call Thursday 14 or Friday 15 May 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

Dear All, An invitation on behalf of Kevin Wilson, CFO: We would like to discuss the status of travel support with interested members of the ICANN community. The purpose of the call is to summarize what we have heard from the community, the changes we are including in the FY10 Draft budget( in advance of its posting on 17 May), and the status of the updated travel policies/procedures/guidelines to be posted soon for further community feedback. We will also address the status of many of the less financially important, but historically time consuming for community and staff, issues. I think the community will be pleased with the progress we are making. My current thought is to have two calls next Thursday 14 May at UTC 1500 and next "Friday" 15 May at UTC 0300. That's Thursday morning and evening MDR time. Thursday 14 May at 15:00 UTC = 08:00PDT, 11:00 EDT, 12:00 Buenos Aires, 16 :00 London, 17:00 CEST, 23 :00 Singapore/Hong Kong, 01 :00 Melbourne Friday 15 May at 03:00 UTC = 13:00 Melbourne, 11:00 Singapore/Hong Kong, 05:00 CEST, 04:00 London, 00:00 Buenos Aires, 23:00 EDT, 20:00 PDT. Please let me know gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org> which call you would like to attend and you will receive the dial-in details. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Philip Sheppard May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

* On the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery I vote: * [x ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: ocre 6

1 0

RE: Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Philip Sheppard May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

* On the motion proposing an Issues Report on aspects of Registry-Registrar Agreements I vote: * [x ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: ocre 6

1 0

RE: CORRECTION Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Adrian Kinderis May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

* On the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery I vote: * [x] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: violet 9 Completed ballots are due NLT 16:10 UTC, Sunday, 10 May 2009. (12:10 EDT, 13:10 Buenos Aires, 17:10 London, 18:10 Brussels/Geneva, 00:10 HongKong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 11 May 2009) 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 for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: (i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) 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 (iii) 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. Thank you. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org tel : +33 (0) 9 524 570 44 Voice mail: +33 4 93 45 21 27 Cell + 33 6 21 79 24 54 Blackberry email: gnso(a)mobileemail.vodafone.fr

1 0

FW: Ballot on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Forwarded from Olga Cavalli * On the motion Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery * [x ] Yes * [ ] No * [ ] Abstain * Password: pink 3

1 0

RE: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 7 May 2009
by Tim Ruiz May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

For the official minutes, in the listings of Councilors in Motion 2 below Mary Wong is not listed. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] GNSO Council resolutions 7 May 2009 From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, May 07, 2009 2:21 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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. One 'nay vote' was heard. 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(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Council resolutions 7 May 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

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. One 'nay vote' was heard. 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(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 7 May, 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held on 7 May, 2009 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090507.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#may Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Absentee vote on Motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Glen de Saint Géry May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Dear Councilors, In keeping with the proxy vote procedures, all councilors who were absent from the meeting today, Thursday 7 May 2009 are invited to send the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org> a request for a ballot. Councilors noted as absent: Adrian Kinderis, Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli and Greg Ruth. You will then be sent a ballot with an option to vote, YES, NO or ABSTAIN. The current bylaws require a reason for abstaining on a policy recommendation, so please indicate your reason for abstaining. The Chair requested that this process should be completed within 72 hours of the meeting which ended at 16:10 UTC on Thursday 7 May 2009. Completed ballots are due NLT 16:10 UTC, Sunday, 10 May 2009. (12:10 EDT, 13:10 Buenos Aires, 17:10 London, 18:10 Brussels/Geneva, 00:10 HongKong, 02:10 Melbourne Monday 11 May 2009) 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 for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: (i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) 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 (iii) 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. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0