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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Michael.

Based on volunteers on the call today, I also have James and Mikey, 
so I think that will be fine.
Alan

At 04/01/2011 11:55 AM, Michael Young wrote:
> 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