ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Document for discussion: 17 MARCH at 15:00 UTC

  • To: PEDNR DT <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Document for discussion: 17 MARCH at 15:00 UTC
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:59:55 -0400


After sending this, I realized one problem of trying to include both in and out-of-scope in the single PDP is that the vote to start it is only >33% within scope and >66% out of scope. I guess that this could be addressed by separating the out-of-scope part into a separate motion, or including it as a provisional requirement if it attracts a sufficiently high vote.

Alan

At 17/03/2009 02:15 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In preparation for the meeting, I have drafted a proposed motion for the GNSO Council. We have not yet decided on all of the points in the motion, but I thought that putting a strawman on the table will better focus our discussions.

In particular, my rationale for the following issues is as follows:

- Registrar transfer during the RGP: I have no problem with putting this into the IRTP-A scope. I am equally happy leaving it here, but based on the Issues Report, I think that it may complicate this PDP far more than it will the IRPT-A one.

- I have not tried to completely formulate the resultant WG Charter. This could be done if it is advisable.

- PDPs come in two flavours, those that formulate a consensus policy, and those that constitute advice to the Board or staff. The new gTLD or Contractual Conditions PDP (PDP06) are examples of the latter type. Unless there is some rule against it, my preference would be to have this PDP include both aspects, as it seems foolish not to capture the advice-type recommendations if and when they come up in the deliberations. I can give some examples of why I think this is important during the meeting.

I do apologize for the late timing of this. The backlog of work when I returned from Mexico City coupled with some major computer problems occupied far too much of my time. On the poitive side, the document is under one page long.

Alan



At 16/03/2009 03:47 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
Dear All,

A Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery call has been scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 15:00 UTC.
(08:00 PST, 11:00 am EST, 16:00 CET)

Dial-in details below:
(Please note that the dial-in numbers have changed from those some of you have been using regularly)
Pass code: PEDNR
(Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery)

The call will be recorded and transcribed as usual and these are posted on the calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Currently subscribed to the drafting team list:

Avri Doria - GNSO Council chair (subscribed to all lists as observers)
Chuck Gomes - GNSO Council vice chair (subscribed to all lists as observers)
Matt Serlin - Mark Monitor Registrar constituency
Steve Holsten - Registry constituency
Jeff Eckhaus - DemandMedia Registrar constituency
Mike Rodenbaugh - CBUC GNSO Council rep.
Alan Greenberg - ALAC

ICANN staff:
Liz Gasster
Marika Konings
Margie Milam


Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen








<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy