RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Plans for the new year

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan I volunteer to review wording.

Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: January-04-11 1:00 AM
To: PEDNR
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Plans for the new year


I would like to wish all WG members the very best for the New Year.

Marika has pointed out to me that the deadline for publishing for the San
Francisco meeting is 21 Feb 2011. That leaves us just 7 meetings (including
today's) if we want to publish a final report in time for San Francisco (and
I know that none of us want to extend this process more than that).

To increase the challenge, I have a conflict part way into today's meeting,
and would like to make this one a short one.

For today's agenda, I would like to review the current status of our
proposals and look at what we need to do to complete our work. Since I will
have a *LOT* more time now that I am not an ALAC member and ALAC Vice-Chair,
I will be happy to take the lead in drafting our formal proposals, but I
will be looking for a couple of volunteers who I can bounce wording of of as
I go along. Part of our work first is to decide what methodology we will use
to determine the level of consensus that we will indicate in our final
report for each recommendation. WG rules require that we not just use the
people on an individual teleconference to do this, so we will likely have to
resort to a poll of some sort open to all WG members.

On one of our key points, there has been no list traffic on the note sent
out be James during the Cartagena meeting regarding the GoDaddy statistics.
The original message and a reply from me are in our mailing list archives,
but due to embedded HTML, they are nearly unreadable, so I will resend them
to the list after sending this message.

Since this is a crucial part of our work, I think it demands that all WG
members have an opportunity to discuss this.

During the meeting there was a strong support for a 10-day period by the
registrars present, as well as the one registry rep present. 
Among users, Mikey said he supported this as well, but wanted to ensure that
there was still adequate time to recover after the domain was blacked out or
were redirected (if I have mis-stated his reservation, I am sure he will
correct it here). My concern was that the data did not at all confirm our
general belief that the redirection of the address was a crucial way that
registrants were reminded that the domain had expired and that may call into
question whether the GoDaddy statistics are fully representative (since they
typically offer registrant user auto-renewal as a default, perhaps they see
more renewals at day one than some other registrars may). In any case, I
think that it is important that all WG members consider this and I would
like to schedule some time on next weeks (Jan 11) meeting to discuss this in
full.

Again, best wishes for 2011 and I hope that most of you can participate in
todays call as well as those over the next two months.

Alan