ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft resolution - Version 2

  • To: "PEDNR DT" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft resolution - Version 2
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:39:59 -0400

In the absence of substantive negative comments, I will submit this to Council in a few hours. Alan

At 18/03/2009 02:52 PM, Holsten, Steve wrote:

 Alan, I'm fine with these 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 11:58 PM
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft resolution - Version 2

Attached is a revised version of the resolution.  In addition to some
word-smithing to make the sentences flow, I have made two changes which
I would like your comments on.

1. On consideration, I felt that the term "best practices" that Chuck
added did not really encompass the breadth of non-consensus policy
recommendations that may result from this PDP. I have used the words
"recommendations regarding best practices, ICANN compliance processes
and possible RAA changes". This does not oblige the PDP group to address
all of these, but it makes clear that all are allowed. The reason I feel
this is important is that in recent times, Council has taken a strong
position of PDP WGs not extending their scope on their own volition, so
if we feel that all of these type of recommendations are within scope,
we should make it clear at the onset, and not have some later Council
mis-interpret our intent.

2. During our discussion today, it was suggested that this present PDP
process could comment on and make recommendations to the IRTP-C group. I
realized that although the mechanics or logistics of such a transfer are
reasonably placed in the IRTP-C domain, it is really this PDP that
should consider if the need for such a transfer is required from a
registrant point-of-view. If this change is particularly troublesome to
this group, we can revert to the wording in the previous version, but I
do think that this adds some clarity.

A reminder that if we want to make the agenda of this month's Council
meeting, we need closure on this motion by Thursday.

Regards, Alan

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy