RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Document for discussion: 17 MARCH at 15:00 UTC
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 To: PEDNR DT 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. 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 > > Attachment:
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery DraftMotion with Comments 16March09.doc
|