Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR workshop

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Would you agree if I already reach out to Rob Hal to see if he is willing and 
available to participate in the PEDNR workshop? Following his feedback, 
provided he is available, the drafting team can provide him with further 
guidance on the expectations for the presentation.

Best regards,

Marika

On 5/28/09 5:27 PM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



I don't believe we should try to guess what various components of the
community *think*. The end-of-life cycle is a matter of fact and can be
presented. Let's allow people to tell us what they think. How registrars
or registries use the end-of-life cycle may also be a matter of fact and
can be presented if known and verified as accurate.

If we do anything else, we must then worry about giving *equal time* to
other views.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR workshop
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 28, 2009 10:12 am
To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


Tim, we can pick whatever words we want, but I
think what Marika was getting at (and I'm sure
she will correct me if I am wrong) is that the
presentation should be up-front about the
differences between what most people *think* the
process is, including many long-time ICANN people
(including some on GNSO) and what is often
actually happening. I am not saying that what is
happening violates rules, just that many are not
aware of how things play out now.

Alan

At 28/05/2009 10:42 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>Domain Name end-of-life cycle - Please do not use the term *theory*.
>This should be a fact based presentation of the cycle and fact based
>information on how registrars or registries use it. If Rob can do it, he
>should have at least an outline to the WG for review by 12 June.
>
>Tim
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR workshop
>From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Thu, May 28, 2009 7:31 am
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>,
>"gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Thanks Alan for your feedback. As this meeting is likely to be the
>kick-off for the WG, would the following agenda make sense and address
>your points?
>
>
>+ The ALAC Request &shy; issues identified and envisioned outcomes (Alaan)
>
>+ The Issues Report &shy; overview and recommendations (Marika)
>+ The role of compliance in the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy -
>(ICANN compliance department &shy; if available)
>+ Domain Name end-of-life cycle &shy; theory and practice (Rob Hall â– if
>available)
>+ Exchange of views on PEDNR Charter questions (All):
>
>
> - Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem
>their expired domain names;
> - Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration
>agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
> - Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of
>upcoming expirations;
> - Whether additional measures need to be implemented to
>indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it
>has expired (e.g., hold status, a
> notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other
>options to be determined).
> - Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the
>RGP.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Marika
>
>
>On 5/27/09 11:35 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
><https://email.secureserver.net/alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> At 27/05/2009 03:27 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> In addition to the development of a proposed charter, I am hoping to
>get your thoughts and ideas for the programme of the workshop on
>Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery that has been scheduled for
>Wednesday 24 June from 14.00 &shy; 16.00 in Sydney (see
>http://syd.icann.org/node/3869) to allow for a first exchange of views
>with the broader community on these issues and hopefully attract
>additional people to join the Working Group.
>
>Marika, thanks for starting this.
>
>I think that two parts that are required are:
>
>1. A tutorial on the end-of-life cycle both as originally imagined and
>what is actually happening.
>2. A summary of what those who initiated this process imagine as
>reasonable outcomes.
>
>I would be happy to participate in both parts (assuming a decision is
>made soon to give me time to prepare).
>
>Part 1. could also be done by staff. Alternately, perhaps Rob hall could
>be convinced to present such a review. He did something similar in
>Lisbon -
>http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/lisbon/transcript-tutorial-expiring-25mar07.htm
>.
>
>Alan