RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.

["Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following have now posted regrets for today's call:

Mikey O'Connor
James Bladel
Mason Cole
Michele Neylon
Oliver Hope

Given this includes many of the regular PEDNR participants, I do not
believe we will reach a quorum today.  In any event, we won't have a
representative sample of registrar reps present - making debate about
timeframes and mandatory out-of-band signals kind of pointless.  

Can we postpone today's discussions until next week (25 January)?

In the interim, we should all continue the dialogue on the mailing list.

Regards, P


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:25 AM
To: PEDNR
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Where we are now.


I would like to summarize where we are at the moment.

Assuming that agreements already made are not revoked, we have made 
substantial progress. This has happened with (as I see it) ground 
given up by all parties and we need to acknowledge that. Regardless 
of the stumbling blocks still in our path, this is a good outcome.

We are working on one issue - the time allowed for guaranteed renewal 
and how the domain behaves during that period. I thought that I had 
made a useful proposal - simply stated and very flexible.  But 
apparently it is not viewed that way by registrars. I would 
appreciate having alternatives proposed that address what is 
perceived as a real need by the user community - as Mikey has put it, 
an out-of-band signal of expiration.

As hard as it may be to believe, I too want policies that are both 
enforceable and practical. And effective.

Alan