hi to all interested in this topic,

as i mentioned in the Monthly Meeting, i had reported to the PEDNR weekly
meeting last week that i thought that our group likely did not have a
position statement within time for the working group to consider it.

but from encouragement from the meeting participants to bring this to the
mailing list to get a constituancy statement approved, i reported this 
to the weekly meeting (which started 2 hours after our meeting ended).

###

my inexperience in the workings of both NCUC and the ICANN meetings have
made me proceed more cautiously than i would have liked to in retrospect.

although some have subscribed to the web-page "club" area for PEDNR, no
more experienced members have participated there.

also, this issue is a very narrow issue, compared to every other working
group that i am aware of...so with limited volunteer time, and especially
with the issues of surrounding the ICANN board's votes, and preparing for
the meeting in Seoul, that PEDNR doesn't merit much group attention.

but in the spirit i believe that our members would endorse, i wish i had
had the forsight to make weekly summaries of the WG meetings and now
understand that many like the use of the mailing list more than the web
site.   working from the bottom up as we want to see happen more broadly
in ICANN, then the membership would have let me know if there were 
issues they wanted me to represent the NCUC with to the WG.

fortunately, i have long experience in the domain name technical side,
as well as some of the politics (our first domain name was registered
with SRI before there was a fee charged for registration), and i've
helped dozens of non-profits, and dozens of individuals with domain name
issues, including post-expiration recovery.    so i believe that i have
helped along the positions that NCUC would likely endorse.

with that, i wrote the following draft, and need corrections, changes,
or endorsement of it to present to the WG.   note that i don't have to
be the one to deliver it to the WG, it can be sent in by any authorized
individual.     i have revised slightly the answers to earlier questions,
and the last question i had answered, simply yes, but have revised it
extensively.

respectfully submitted,

-ron


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 23:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ron Wickersham <[log in to unmask]>
To: Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Draft

hi Robin,

i have heard from no one else on the draft, perhaps due to the election, so 
proceeded on my own.

note that this is due Oct 6th (may not be reflected on the sites, but the
working group decided to extend the deadline).

-ron

#############################################################################

Constituency Input Template

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process

PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE TO THE PEDNR WG AT THE LATEST BY [TO BE CONFIRMED]

The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders and 
Constituency representatives, to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable 
individuals and organizations, in order to consider recommendations for best 
practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy to 
address a number of questions related to post-expiration domain name recovery.

Part of the working group's effort will be to incorporate ideas and suggestions 
gathered from Constituencies through this Constituency Statement. Inserting 
your Constituency?s response in this form will make it much easier for the 
Working Group to summarize the Constituency responses. This information is 
helpful to the community in understanding the points of view of various 
stakeholders. However, you should feel free to add any information you deem 
important to inform the working group's deliberations, even if this does not 
fit into any of the questions listed below.

For further background information on this issue, please review the GNSO Issues 
Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery.

Process

     * Please identify the members of your constituency who participated in 
developing the perspective(s) set forth below.?


Ron Wickersham drafted the response.
Reviewed by NCUC Executive committee.

     * Please describe the process by which your constituency arrived at the 
perspective(s) set forth below.

Notice of PEDNR WG was posted on the NCUC wiki for volunteers.
The NCUC mailing list solicited volunteers and comments from members.
Progress of PENDR WG was discussed briefly on two NCUC teleconferences.


Questions

Please provide your constituency?s views on:

    1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their 
expired domain names;

Current ICANN policies endeavor to assure that expired domain names can
be redeemed.  However, due to the complex array of registrars, and expecially
resellers, these ICANN policies are not as effective as envisioned.

On the narrow question of "opportunity" it is likely that a timely request
for restoration of an expired domain name is honored.

But there is a broader aspect which is that the registrant may be offered
no information or incomplete information from the reseller or registrar
handling the domain, and the policies vary widely.


    2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements 
are clear and conspicuous enough;

While "typical" registration agreements (especially for the larger
registrars) are good, it is not the case that every registrant receives
a registration agreement.

Process are in place to assure that the Registries handle every domain in
a uniform manner.   Expiration issues should be equally uniform, and not
be considered in the realm of "competitive" variations.

In matters of this type, education of the Registrant has been suggested 
as the solution.  NCUC believes that education can only suceed if the 
policies around expiration are identical from any registrar or reseller.

Therefore the PEDNR WG would fulfill its mission if ICANN established 
minimum policies to be set out for notification when domains approach 
expiration, for procedures to be followed if the registration is not 
renewed (so that DNS changes at expiration uniformly regardless of 
registrar or reseller), and notification for restoring an expired domain 
name is uniform.


    3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming 
expirations;

Most registrars provide adequate notice.


    4. 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);

NCUC finds that whois information on expiration is confusing for 
registrants due to auto-renew.   It would be ideal to eliminate the 
use of the identical term at the registry whois and the registrar or 
reseller whois to indicate the status of the domain.

Because many domains are handled by web-hosting/email-hosting registrars
and resellers, and these are often automated and competitively disparate
offerings, there is little uniformity on what happens and at what speed
changes are made to web sites and email routing when a domain expires.
This variation makes registrant education a difficult goal.

    5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP.

Read as if ICANN policy should allow, from willing registrars or 
resellers, transfer during the RGP, the answer is affirmative.  On the 
other hand, to _require_ registrars and resellers is fraught with 
difficulties.

While it is slightly out of scope of the PEDNR WG, there is a related
issue of a registrant being able to transfer before the registration
expires, and in some cases this is precluded by registration agreements
that vary.   It would be good policy to require uniformity on this
aspect of oportunity to renew with a registrar or reseller of the
registrant's choice.