ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


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

Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated PEDNR WG Charter

  • To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated PEDNR WG Charter
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:12:39 -0700

Alan, would it be an option to give the WG a timeframe instead of a set date, 
taking into account that this timetable is open to modification anyway, so that 
it would read:


 *   WG formed, chair & Council liaison & staff coordinator identified = T
 *   Initial Report: T + 150 - 200 days
 *   First comment period ends: T + 170 - 220 days
 *   Preliminary Final Report: T + 200 - 250 days.

In this way the group has the flexibility to move faster if possible, while at 
the same time leaving the option open for more time if needed.

Best regards,

Marika

On 6/8/09 6:24 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am happy with the text of the charter.  The time line may be problematic. 
If"T" is the 24th of June (GNSO Council meeting in Sydney), we have

Initial Report: T + 170 days = 11 Dec 2009
First comment period ends: T + 190 days = 31 Dec 2009
Preliminary Final Report: T + 210 days = 20 Jan 2009

That puts the comment period right over the Christmas break. If we slip a few 
weeks, it puts pulling together the Initial Report over that period. Neither 
are acceptable.

I think that we have two options:

1. Decrease the first two periods to 150 and 170. That puts the deadline for 
the initial report at 3 weeks after Seoul, presuming we could have worked out 
an acceptable solution during a face-to-face meeting, and give a longer period 
for final drafting factoring in Christmas.

2. Increase the last two periods to 200 and 220, putting the deadline for 
comments at 01 Jan 10 and the report deadline at 30 Jan 10.

I can live with either. Option 2 gives us a bit more time, but is still 
agressive.

Alan


At 08/06/2009 06:15 AM, you wrote:
Others (especially Alan, Mike O.), please share your views on the PEDNR WG 
Charter with the mailing list so Tim can submit it to the Council in time for 
consideration at its meeting in Sydney.

Thanks,

Marika

On 6/4/09 1:02 PM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:



Marika,

Thanks, it looks good to me. I'll wait to submit the motion to the
Council until everyone agrees it's good to go (or at least those that
care to comment). But you might want to remind me :)

Rob has agreed to present the theory/practice piece of the workshop.
He'll need to know how much time he has and other details necessary. Do
we put on this mail list? Or will you be coordinating with him? This
group will also want to see at least a draft of his presentation before
hand.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated PEDNR WG Charter
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> >
Date: Thu, June 04, 2009 3:28 am
To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> " 
<gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> >

Dear All,

Please find attached an updated version of the proposed PEDNR WG
Charter, following yesterday‚s discussion.

This document as well as the revised text have been posted on the PEDNR
Wiki which is now up and running on
https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg
 .


Please share your comments and suggestions on the mailing list. A next
call will be scheduled for Wednesday 10 June at 18.00 UTC.

With best regards,

Marika





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