RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Tweeking of a policy post-implementation

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan & Marilyn,

 

Agreed we should building review mechanisms which are not as burdensome
as starting a new PDP all over again.  With respect to this specific
report, I do have some thoughts on the subject matter, but will not
cross post them on here.

 

Jeff

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy



________________________________

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately and delete the original message.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Alan Greenberg; gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Tweeking of a policy post-implementation

 


Alan, I am interested in advancing a discussion on this. It was a
challenge under the 

earlier PDP, and indeed, it is important to figure out how to
incorporate this need 

into the revised PDP process. Perhaps others would be interested in
participating 

with Alan and me in a discussion. 

 

Marilyn Cade




> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:15:58 -0500
> To: gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> From: alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] Tweeking of a policy post-implementation
> 
> One of the items on our list to discuss is how might the GNSO 
> "adjust" a policy after it is implemented.
> 
> The attached point is a case in point - an update on the Domain 
> Tasting policy implementation. It identifies an area where a 
> modification to the policy might be appropriate. Under the current 
> processes, it would seem that the only way is to request an issues 
> report and then initiate a new PDP. Within the context of GNSO 
> priorities and overall workload, I would suggest that this will never
happen.
> 
> Given that we are increasingly incorporating a monitor and report 
> clause into new policy, this is not an issue that we can ignore, nor 
> is it obvious how to address it while maintaining the bottom-up 
> consensus-driven model.
> 
> I suggest that in advance of the PDP WT looking at this, anyone who 
> is particularly interested might start a side discussion on 
> alternatives for addressing this.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> >From: Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz@xxxxxxxxx>
> >To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:57:07 -0500
> >Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Implementation Report
> >
> >Dear Councilors,
> >
> >Please find attached the second AGP Limits Policy Implementation 
> >Report. This report provides a status update on the implementation 
> >of the Policy since it was announced to the community on 17 December
2008.
> >
> >As always, please let me know if you have any questions about this 
> >information.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Craig Schwartz
> >Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
> >ICANN