Attached and copied below is a motion I would like to make regarding the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report. I apologize for not making the 7-day cutoff before our 18 December meeting but I believe the motion should be fairly straightforward. Chuck Motion - GNSO Council Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report 12 Dec 08 Whereas: On 20 November 2008, the ALAC requested an Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (see Annex I of the Issues Report cited below or go to http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pd f> On 5 December 2008, in response to the above referenced request for an Issues Report, ICANN Staff delivered the Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery to the GNSO Council (see email from Marika Konings dated 5 Dec 08) Additional clarification is needed on several items discussed in the above referenced Issues Report, Resolve: The decision on whether to initiate a PDP will be delayed until the needed clarification is obtained about Issues Report items defined below; ICANN Staff is asked to provide clarification NLT 15 January 2009 on the following from the Issues Report: * In Section 4.2, in reference to the last bullet on page 15 regarding "how best to enable the transfer of a domain name in RGP", the continuation of the same paragraph on page 16 reads, "On the latter point, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether this should be investigated in the context of the upcoming Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy PDP C, 'IRTP Operational Rules Enhancements'." o Is it recommended that this would be added to the requirements for IRTP PDP C? o What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? o What changes would need to be made to IRTP PDP C? * In the last paragraph of Section 4.2 on page 16, Staff recommends ". . . the GNSO Council could consider enhancements, which would highlight more clearly and visibly the provisions of the contract in relation to auto-renew and expiration policies. It should be noted that ICANN staff does not recommend that this be included in a PDP . . ." o How is it envisioned that this would happen if not via a PDP? o What action items might be needed to accomplish this recommendation? * Section 3.7.5 of ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement, as quoted on page 28, says, "At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registered Name Holder to consent that the registration be renewed within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration by the end of the auto-renew grace period (although Registrar may choose to cancel the name earlier)." o Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? o Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder does not consent to renewal? If not, why not? * Section 3.7.5.3 on page 29 reads, "In the absence of extenuating circumstances (as defined in Section 3.7.5.1 above), a domain name must be deleted within 45 days of either the registrar or the registrant terminating a registration agreement." o Is this requirement being enforced? If not, why not? o Under this policy, wouldn't registrars be required to cancel (delete) a registration, in the absence of extenuating circumstances as defined in this section, if a Registered Name Holder or the Registrar terminates a registration agreement? If not, why not?