• Home
  • Domains
  • Advertise
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • rss
  • twitter
  • Vrytek.com | Domain and Hosting News - Blogged

VRYTEK

Domain & Hosting News



Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration

Posted By Vrytek On Tuesday, August 16th 2011 In Domain News | Tags: Auto, council, Development., domain-name, gnso, pdf, recommendation, recommendations, Registered, registrant, Registrar, Registry | 
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration

The Generic Names Supporting Organization approved at its meeting on 21 July 2011 the recommendations on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP). The resolution, which is pending for Board action, proposes: Define ‘Registered Name Holder at Expiration’ (RNHaE) as the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. If the domain name registration was modified pursuant to a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal but not at the explicit request of the registrant, the RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant immediately prior to that modification. For at least 8 consecutive days, at some point following expiration, the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE, at the time of expiration, must be interrupted1 by the registrar, to the extent that the registry permits such interruptions 1, and the domain must be renewable by the RNHaE until the end of that period. This 8-day period may occur at any time following expiration. At any time during the 8 day period, the Registered Name Holder at Expiration may renew the domain with the Registrar and the Registrar, within a commercially reasonable delay, will restore the domain name to resolve to its original DNS resolution path prior to expiration. Notwithstanding, the Registrar may delete the domain at any time during the Autorenew grace period. If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Wording in the policy must make clear that ¡°instructions¡± may be as simple as directing the RNHaE to a specific web site. The RNHaE cannot be prevented from renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes made by the Registrar that were not at the RNHaE.s request. The registration agreement must include or point to any fee(s) charged for the post expiration renewal of a domain name. If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name or the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications, or must point to the location where such information can be found. What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable. Registrar must notify Registered Name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. One such notice must be sent one month or 30 days prior to expiration (+/- 4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to expiration (+/- 3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. Unless the Registered Name is renewed or deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification to the RNHaE, which includes renewal instructions, must be sent after expiration. Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit registrant action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. With the exception of sponsored gTLDs, all gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing unsponsored gTLDs that do not currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must offer the RGP. As part of the implementation, ICANN Staff should consider the Technical Steering Group’s Implementation Proposal (see http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm ) If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. A transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed. In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrars that ICANN has published web content as described in PEDNR Recommendation #16: Registrars, who have a web presence, must provide a link to the ICANN content on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies. Registrars may also host similar material adapted to their specific practices and processes. Registrar must point to the ICANN material in a communication sent to the registrant immediately following initial registration as well as in the mandated annual WHOIS reminder. Note: Some of these recommendations may need special consideration in the context of existing provisions in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or exceptions due to fraud, breach of registration agreement or other substantive reasons and the GNSO Council, therefore, recommends that such considerations are taken into account as part of the implementation of these recommendations, once adopted. The GNSO Council recommends the following best practices for promotion by ICANN and the Registrar Stakeholder Group: If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by post-expiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. The notification method explanation should include the registrar’s email address from which notification messages are sent and a suggestion that registrants save this email address as a ‘safe sender’ to avoid notification emails being blocked by spam filter software. Registrars should advise registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact that is not associated with the domain name itself so that in case of expiration reminders can be delivered to this secondary email point of contact. The GNSO Council recommends that ICANN, in consultation with Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, will develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Such material may include registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle and guidelines for keeping domain name records current. (PEDNR Recommendation #16). ICANN Compliance is requested to provide updates to the GNSO Council on a regular basis in relation to the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed recommendations, either in the form of a report that details amongst others the number of complaints received in relation to renewal and/or post-expiration related matters or in the form of audits that assess if the policy has been implemented as intended. The GNSO Council shall convene a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the PEDNR Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new PEDNR policy recommendations, the PEDNR Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to the members of the PEDNR Working Group. You are invited to submit your comments on these recommendations until 15 September before final consideration by the ICANN Board. Section II: Background At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the following charter 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 Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its deliberations in July 2009. The WG published an Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB], a Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] and submitted its Final Report [PDF, 999 KB] to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011. The GNSO Council unanimously approved all the recommendations contained in the Final Report at its meeting on 21 July 2011. Section III: Document and Resource Links GNSO Council Resolution on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations PEDNR Final Report [PDF, 998 KB] PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB] Comment Period Deadlines Open Date: 15 August 2011 Close Date: 15 September 2011 Important Information Links Public Comment Box To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted This ICANN announcement was sourced from: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15aug11-en.htm

Read more here

ICANN: Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting

Posted By Vrytek On Wednesday, July 20th 2011 In Domain News | Tags: 2011-the-gnso, council, council-operating, gnso, operations, pdf, proxy, proxy-voting, resource-links, the-proxy | 
ICANN: Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf [PDF, 427 KB] that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting. At its meeting in Singapore on 22 June 2011 the GNSO Council approved a resolution https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 directing Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating proposed revisions and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum. ICANN Staff is seeking comments on Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting [PDF,158 KB]. Section II: Background The GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf [PDF, 427 KB] that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting and tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures.  On 14 June 2011 the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council recommended revisions. At its meeting in Singapore on 22 June 2011 the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and approved a resolution https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 directing Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post this document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum.   The proposed revisions affect the following sections of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures:  Chapter 3 GNSO Council Meetings, Section 3.8 Absences and Vacancies; Chapter 4 Voting, Section 4.5.3 Remedies to Avoid Abstaining on a Vote; 4.5.3b Proxy Voting; and 4.5.3c Temporary Alternate. The OSC found that the original procedures could be simplified and also that they contradicted the internal procedures of certain constituencies. The OSC simplified the procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder.  In particular, the proxy giver can give the proxy to any other Councilor.  The revision does, however, maintain the requirement that a Council member is not permitted to be a proxy holder for more than one proxy giver.  The OSC also simplified the procedures in terms of the proxy vote to three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver’s appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience. Section III: Document and Resource Links GNSO Council Operating Procedures gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-05aug10-en.pdf [PDF, 427 KB] GNSO Council Resolution https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+June+2011 Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures Relating to Proxy Voting [PDF, 158 KB] Comment Period Deadlines Open Date: 19 July 2011 Close Date: 9 August 2011 Important Information Links Public Comment Box To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted This ICANN announcement was sourced from: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19jul11-en.htm

Read more here

ICANN: Current State of the UDRP Webinar Announcement

Posted By Vrytek On Friday, April 22nd 2011 In Domain News | Tags: adobe-connect, chat, council, effectiveness, gnso, issue, Live, observers, perspective, presentations, using-the-chat, viewpoints, webinar | 
ICANN: Current State of the UDRP Webinar Announcement

The webinar will explore the current state of the UDRP. Attendees will hear the viewpoints from experts in the field on the effectiveness of the UDRP, and whether it should be modified or amended

Read more here

ICANN Meeting in June Moved from Jordan

Posted By Vrytek On Friday, February 18th 2011 In General News | Tags: 41st-public, all-posts, frank-michlick, gnso, jordan, meeting, Minute, moved, permanent-link, policy, president, singapore, Support., will-move | 
ICANN Meeting in June Moved from Jordan

02|17|2011 2:31 pm EDT ICANN Meeting in June Moved from Jordan by Frank Michlick in Categories: ICANN / Policy , Up to the Minute – 0 Comments According to an email by David A. Olive, Vice President, Policy Development Support at ICANN, sent to the GNSO mailinglist , ICANN will move it’s 41st public meeting from Jordan due to security concerns. The meeting will be held from June 19th to 24th, 2011.

Read more here

ICANN – Public Comment: GNSO Council Requests Your Input on Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines

Posted By Vrytek On Wednesday, January 19th 2011 In Domain News | Tags: council, document, generic, generic-names, gnso, improvements, pdf, policy, policy-process, ppsc, proposed, public, Working, working-group | 
ICANN – Public Comment: GNSO Council Requests Your Input on Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines

As part of the GNSO Improvements Process, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) has now submitted to the GNSO Council the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf [PDF, 626 KB]).

Read more here

ICANN: Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on Petition To Form A New GNSO Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency

Posted By Vrytek On Thursday, December 2nd 2010 In Domain News | Tags: article, constituency, gnso, improvements, npoc, organizations, Process, staff | 
ICANN: Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on Petition To Form A New GNSO Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency

The ongoing GNSO Improvements process has created significant community interest in the formation of new GNSO constituencies and several groups have stepped forward to begin the process of forming a new GNSO constituency.

Read more here

ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy

Posted By Vrytek On Saturday, November 20th 2010 In Domain News | Tags: allow-the-gnso, council, disposition, during-the-agp, from-the-policy, gnso, grace-period, limits-policy, pdf, reporting, results, status-report | 
ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy

The Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy, implemented on 1 April 2009, resulted in a 99.7% decrease in AGP deletes and illustrates the success of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members identified a problem, initiated policy discussions, and generated a solution that has produced effective and sustained results.

Read more here
Older Entries «
  • Catchy.com - Don't settle for less!
Advertise Here

Advertisement

Archives

  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009

RSS Hot Auctions

  • md4.com
  • qi5.com
  • k6e.net
  • je7.net
  • j54.net
  • n56.net
  • r9x.net
  • s9u.net
  • w6u.net
  • 29u.net

RSS Top Domains

  • cruisetravel.com (10,000 GBP)
  • holidaytours.com (10,000 EUR)
  • cava.com (Make Offer)
  • daytrader.com (500,000 USD)
  • campaign.com (Make Offer)

Categories

  • Domain News
  • General News
  • Hosting News
  • Industry News
  • Technology News

Pages

  • About us
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Domains
  • Privacy Policy

Web Hosting Info

Businesswebhostingplans offers reviews on the best web hosting companies

As a windows web hosting company justhost support ASP and IIS sites

Vrytek Recommends

  • Managed Hosting
Powered by Vrytek Themes
Copyright © 2012 VRYTEK All Rights Reserved.