ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


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

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

  • To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Fwd: [council] Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:53:58 -0400


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








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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy