Jim, Where in Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process does it refer to a two-step restore process? The only reference that we found was from a meeting on July 7, 2002, with ICANN Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names Proposal and not embedded in a consensus policy.
Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer [email protected] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/3/25, 9:17 PM, "James Galvin" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Since you ask a direct question about ICANN policies, I’ll also add that there is a more recent consensus policy regarding RGP here: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bkD46xeEtzORQVqvd1bLXQUURSmsa49K-MGaG3xhH5tdw-YDgzN28SxbhMvImAtRlgtgeBvVEBk5-eL_JhDl_n2TZ5lRuhyWHJ4ZVo0dUXW6h8NxIkCp9Kh61QlN-PYo2_ZWt1aL0reYS8BlK1o955F7gK72KUmHka6UVNBhs7zvQwZs-X5ui7ypCxiqfAAOJKWFx3k8EBDb9TU3LCNyfjBxeWG7oMZochiKtmChy4gTAr_LxPq0ekr-1xYiJ-Hv_qfuPyne1uKt-UCQ_db0Z55WPP_fzs3TCTPwpstQ9eE/https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffilefield_24907%2Fpednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bkD46xeEtzORQVqvd1bLXQUURSmsa49K-MGaG3xhH5tdw-YDgzN28SxbhMvImAtRlgtgeBvVEBk5-eL_JhDl_n2TZ5lRuhyWHJ4ZVo0dUXW6h8NxIkCp9Kh61QlN-PYo2_ZWt1aL0reYS8BlK1o955F7gK72KUmHka6UVNBhs7zvQwZs-X5ui7ypCxiqfAAOJKWFx3k8EBDb9TU3LCNyfjBxeWG7oMZochiKtmChy4gTAr_LxPq0ekr-1xYiJ-Hv_qfuPyne1uKt-UCQ_db0Z55WPP_fzs3TCTPwpstQ9eE/https%3A%2F%2Fgnso.icann.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffilefield_24907%2Fpednr-final-report-14jun11-en.pdf> And for completeness, you suggest “get ICANN change their requirement for gTLDS”. I want to point out that it’s not ICANN you have to get to change. Some might consider this ICANN arcana but since we’re talking about a consensus policy here, you need to get registries and registrars to want to change, then to agree to change, and then to create a consensus policy with the change. ICANN the organization only has the role of enforcing compliance with rules registries and registrars decide for themselves. In RPP you can do what you want. However, if you would like for gTLDs to be able to consider adopting it, then it would be good to make sure that it is possible for gTLD registries and registrars to apply their existing policies with RPP. Otherwise, they will have to change their policies before they can even consider adopting RPP. Jim On 11 Aug 2025, at 8:59, Maarten Wullink wrote: > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for the link to the ICANN proposal, i forgot you already added this to > the report. > > Is RGP as-is an ICANN requirement for gTLDs? > if so then if we want to change the RGP extension, we would also need to get > ICANN change their requirement for gTLDS and RGP implementation? > > - > Maarten > > > >>> >>> I’ve got some questions about the RGP extension (RFC3915) >>> >>> >>> - Why was the requirement for a restore report added? >> >> JG-The two step restore process of the restore request and restore report >> originated with the ICANN Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names >> Proposal >> (https://secure-web.cisco.com/12J3TYAtjn1vJOTQJDVeYHudTBt_y9LuS1KPDYuwdR19pD2Vba4ezj-9kkC_RfyjfCjSs6ncirYCYoWvBj_aC3Vv23B_3tiqZmoilactv5U54QZl6d_LI7kgpwvQkuMZA2WEJvYwIbGzXLH7YEJ7V5556fZKndUhac3RAiaozU3Hh_9yDr1W9C-sFC0PWaCf2hIDDnBAmaHj28tLGc9VbniCE7VeKc0JB0A4Dakj5tgbxgi-qMaHQpDJxK_TpJ68gfL3WoZN818ccL283YG8X3vZ3YRn-TiuGpbxDrCbtXK8/https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Fmeetings%2Fbucharest%2Fredemption-topic.htm >> >> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/12J3TYAtjn1vJOTQJDVeYHudTBt_y9LuS1KPDYuwdR19pD2Vba4ezj-9kkC_RfyjfCjSs6ncirYCYoWvBj_aC3Vv23B_3tiqZmoilactv5U54QZl6d_LI7kgpwvQkuMZA2WEJvYwIbGzXLH7YEJ7V5556fZKndUhac3RAiaozU3Hh_9yDr1W9C-sFC0PWaCf2hIDDnBAmaHj28tLGc9VbniCE7VeKc0JB0A4Dakj5tgbxgi-qMaHQpDJxK_TpJ68gfL3WoZN818ccL283YG8X3vZ3YRn-TiuGpbxDrCbtXK8/https%3A%2F%2Farchive.icann.org%2Fen%2Fmeetings%2Fbucharest%2Fredemption-topic.htm>), >> dating back to June 7, 2002. >> >>> - Is the contents of the restore report ver checked by any registry? >> >> JG-No, we're not aware of anything being checked by the registries with the >> restore report. >> >>> - Should we consider creating an updated version of the RGP extension >>> without the restore report? >>> >> >> JG-Yes, but it would be good for the EPP bis draft >> (draft-carney-regext-rfc3915bis) to incorporate this change first. >> >>> >>> - >>> Maarten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
