[bc-gnso] BC Position on PEDNER Initial Report

[Berry Cobb]

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 at infinityportals.com

http://infinityportals.com

720.839.5735

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100804/d00845e5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BC_Position_PEDNER_v0.2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 2849235 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100804/d00845e5/BC_Position_PEDNER_v0.2.docx>