As discussed in my e-mail to the ALAC and At-Large on September 24, I have drafted a Request for an Issues Report and distributed it to our community for comments. There has been interest expressed by several GNSO constituencies who would like to collaborate with us on drafting the request, and potentially issue formal statements of support for the request. Representatives of these constituencies and other individuals who have expressed interest have also been consulted.
The Request_for_Issues_Report_on_Post_Expiry_Domain_Recovery, prior to any consultation, is posted.
Based on this draft, I am making the following motions:
MOTION 1
Whereas domain names can expire without the conscious agreement of the domain holder who would otherwise renew the registration;
Whereas the loss of a domain name under these circumstances can have serious negative impact on both the registrant and the wider community of users of the registrant's services;
Whereas ICANN has several times taken action to ensure that a domain name can be recovered by the original owner prior to it being available to others;
Whereas such actions have proven to be ineffective;
I move that the At-large Advisory Committee will request that an Issues Report be created on the subject of the Post-Expiry Domain Recovery. The request will be based on the draft circulated prior to the ALAC meeting of October 14, 2008, and will be revised prior to and at the Cairo ICANN meeting by an ALAC Working Group, with the request to be formally issues by the end of the Cairo meeting.
MOTION 2
I move that the ALAC convene a Working Group, with Alan Greenberg as the ALAC Coordinator to finalize the draft of the request for an Issues Report on Post-Expiry Domain Recovery, with the draft to be approved by the ALAC at the ICANN meeting in Cairo. 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.
Alan,
Fine work... but I have one concern: I am somewhat troubled by the use of the term "Post-Expiry". As you are aware, many registrars have adopted a technique that results in a domain name never actually technically "expiring", namely the Direct Transfer Clause: "Should you choose not to renew your domain name during any applicable grace period, you agree that we may, in our sole discretion, renew and transfer the domain name to a third party on your behalf (such a transaction is hereinafter referred to as a "Direct Transfer")." In my personal opinion, we should eliminate the Post-Expiry term and instead be asking for an issues report on "Domain Recovery", with such a report also examining issues associated with the Direct Transfer Clauses. I would hate to see a Direct Transfer Clause discussion ruled out of scope because of the use of the phrase "post-expiry". – Danny
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-08 16:15:07 GMT
Thanks Danny. I am well aware of the practice, and it is described in the accompanying documentation. I did not click on the fact that such a transfer (or whatever) to a third party might be construed as the original registration not "expiring".
I will either change the wording, or carefully define the term to ensure that we are covered. The reason that I am hesitant to change the term is that I am not sure what other concise word to use to describe the time after the Expiration date/time (as typically documented in the whois info) of the original registrant's registration of the domain.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2008-10-08 17:35:12 GMT
No time to fix the issue raised by Danny at the moment. I will address it later this weekend or after the ALAC meeting. But it will be fixed.
contributed by alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca on 2008-10-10 23:46:39 GMT
I support the motion and the Request for Issues Report pertaining.
Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies
and LACRALO Secretariat
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2008-10-22 17:50:58 GMT
I support the motion too. Indeed some registrars/registries already apply special procedures, sample of .be looks nice to be discussed. I'm willing to bring in my help for the working group on this matter. See you in Ciaro.
Rudi Vansnick
contributed by rudi.vansnick@isoc.be on 2008-10-23 09:26:05 GMT
