[gnso-pednr-dt] Fwd: [council] Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The following was requested as a friendly amendment.  According to the  
practices in the GNSO it is up to me as the person who formally made  
the motion to accept or not.  If I choose not to accept then, assuming  
a motion to amend was made and seconded, it would come up for a vote  
before the motion itself.
I am inclined to accept this as friendly amendment, but since it was  
the DT as a whole that proposed the motion, I am bringing it back to  
you all.
So, do I accept it as a friendly amendment?

thanks

a.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 17 April 2009 13:05:21 EDT
> To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion
>
>
> Avri and Allan,
>
> The intended friendly amendment to PEDNR I am asking for is to replace
> the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section to the following:
>
> "to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues
> identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.
> The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group: (i) that  
> it
> should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or  
> instead
> of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) that to inform its  
> work it
> should pursue the availability of further information from ICANN
> compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and  
> consensus
> policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain  
> names
> during the RGP are enforced; and (iii) that it should specifically
> consider the following questions:"
>
> Reason: We just approved a set of amendments to the RAA and we have a
> group forming to discuss further changes to the RAA. For the RrC, it
> seems onerous to include the potential for RAA changs in every PDP  
> that
> gets initiated and that's what the original motion portends. Item (ii)
> in the above amendmended paragraph uses language straight out of the
> recommendations in the Issues report.
>
> Thanks for considering it.
>
>
> Tim