Hi, I plan on asking the DT that put together this motion to begin work on a proposed WG charter. If anyone from the council or a substitute from your constituencies wants to get involved in charter preparation, please let Glen know so she can add you to the PEDNR DT list. As it is required by the by-laws, I do plan to introduce a motion asking whether we wish to handle this PDP in a task force. Assuming we don't then as per our currently common practice, I will ask the committee of the whole, i.e. the council, to approve the charter of a WG. Perhaps, if it can be done properly according to the by-laws, I will combine these in one motion. But I do want to make sure that what we do remains within the bounds of the PDP. thanks a. On 11 May 2009, at 12:11, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

Dear Councillors

Absentee voting is closed on the motion on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, proposed by Avri Doria, and seconded by Chuck Gomes.

The final results are as follows: 25 votes in favour

20 Votes in favour cast during the meeting: Cyril Chua, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony Harris, Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil, William Drake, Carlos Souza, Avri Doria, Terry Davis ( one vote each) Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (two votes each) Absentee ballots received from: 5 Votes in favour Philip Sheppard, Mary Wong, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Adrian Kinderis (two votes) Absent from voting: Greg Ruth, Tony Holmes (2 votes) 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.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards,

Glen

GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org