ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "PEDNR DT" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Document for discussion: 17 MARCH at 15:00 UTC
  • From: "Holsten, Steve" <sholsten@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:07:35 -0400

Attached are some suggested edits.  Best, Steve

Stephen E. Holsten
Director, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Naming Services
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
tel. 703-948-4357

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Document for discussion: 17 MARCH at 15:00 UTC 

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.


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 
>- 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.
>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:
>>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,

Attachment: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery DraftMotion with Comments 16March09.doc
Description: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery DraftMotion with Comments 16March09.doc

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy