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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be helpful if a Council member who is on the DT made the motion
on the Council list today.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: PEDNR DT
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Draft resolution - Version 2
> 
> 
> 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
> >To: PEDNR DT
> >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
> 
> 
>