Marika,
You're not getting the point. A PDP charter should, in my opinion,
either directly or indirectly be directed NOT to get sidetracked with
consideration of *other* RAA changes. Otherwise it implies considering
issues that the PDP was not formed to consider. If a PDP is engaged on
an *in scope* issue that could result in a consensus policy then it
should focus on that issue. We cannot have working groups going off in
any direction desired, and that's exactly what will happen if we don't
keep them focused on the issue they were formed to consider.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] PEDNR Motion
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 8:15 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Apologies Tim, but I did not mean to imply that staff is encouraging
PDPs to include possible RAA changes. I understood the reason as to why
the drafting team decided to include examples of other possible outcomes
of a PDP, such as a recommendation for RAA changes, to be that the
drafting team wanted to emphasize that consensus policy or consensus
policy changes are not the the only possible outcomes of a PDP.
In reviewing some of the issues, a WG might decide that changes to a
consensus policy are not appropriate but instead a recommendation for a
best practice or RAA change might be more suitable. You are absolutely
right that anything but consensus policy changes, are recommendations
and therefore not enforceable. This is how I interpreted the reference
to possible RAA changes. If this WG were to make a recommendation for
changes to the RAA, and the GNSO would support this recommendation, it
is my understanding that it would be passed on to the appropriate
parties, WG and/or ICANN body to consider this recommendation and follow
the applicable procedures which might result in changes to the RAA, or
not.
Again, apologies for the confusion.
Best regards,
Marika
On 4/2/09 2:42 PM, "Tim Ruiz"
<https://email.secureserver.net/tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Marika,
Thanks for the explanation. But why is Staff encouraging PDPs to
include possible RAA changes? A consensus policy IS an enforceable
change to the RAA. The only other reason would be to change
something not within the scope of the RAA picket fence. Such things
should NOT be part of a PDP.
A PDP should be specifically for *policy* development. If the GNSO
wants to consider things not within scope of the picket fence it
should not initiate a PDP. It can very well form a group to consider
such things if it chooses with the understanding that the outcome
will not be a mandate but only a suggestion or possibly a recommended
(but not enforceable) best practice. Mixing these things together is
NOT a productive way to approach our work.
In fact, we are forming such a group to discuss further changes to
the RAA. That group will no doubt discuss things not within the RAA's
picket fence as well as some things that are. For me, if this PDP is
going to proceed with the understanding that it will include
dicussion/examination of changes to the RAA, then I see no point in
purusing any other discussion of the RAA.
That all said, I would like to ask for the following, intended
friendly ammendment to the PEDNR motion:
Replace the main paragraph of the RESOLVE portion with this:
to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues
identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues
Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:
(i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well
as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) that to
inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information
from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions
and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery
of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and (iii) that it should
specifically consider the following questions:
Also, I would suggest that the last bullet/question be deleted since
the last paragraph really covers it. So to be clear, if my proposed
amendment is accepted as friendly the RESOLVE portion of the motion
would read:
GNSO Council RESOLVES:
to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) to address the issues
identified in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues
Report. The charter for this PDP should instruct the Working Group:
(i) that it should consider recommendations for best practices as well
as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy; (ii) that to
inform its work it should pursue the availability of further information
from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions
and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery
of domain names during the RGP are enforced; and (iii) that it should
specifically consider the following questions:
-- Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their
expired domain names;
-- Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration
agreements are clear and conspicuous enough;
-- Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming
expirations;
-- Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that
once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired
(e.g. hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on
how to renew or other options to be determined).
The GNSO Council further resolves that the issue of logistics of
possible registrar transfer during the RGP shall be incorporated into
the charter of the IRTP Part C charter.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] PEDNR Motion
From: Marika Konings
<https://email.secureserver.net/marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 4:20 am
To: Alan Greenberg
<https://email.secureserver.net/alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council
<https://email.secureserver.net/council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim, please note that the recommendation you quoted from the Issues
Report specifically relates to â??the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in
its requestâ??, some of which go beyond the issues recommended for a
PDP. As noted by Alan, the drafting team and staff did discuss whether a
pre-PDP WG would be appropriate, but agreed that further research and
consultation could be done as part of a PDP as the issues recommended
for inclusion in a PDP have been narrowly defined. As stated in the
motion, the drafting team does believe it is important to highlight in
the charter that the outcomes of a PDP are not limited to recommended
changes to consensus policy, but could also include recommendations
regarding e.g. best practices, compliance, possible RAA changes or
further dialogue.
On a different note, but related to the Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery Issues Report, I would like to draw your attention to a
deletion and renewal consensus policy audit in relation to the Expired
Domain Deletion Consensus Policy that was carried out by the ICANNâ??s
compliance team recently (see further details attached). Follow-up audit
activity is being carried out as a result of the non-compliance
identified in the audit. As a result of this follow-up, the compliance
team estimates that the number of non-compliant registrars is about
30-40% less today then when the report was published.
With best regards,
Marika
On 4/2/09 5:11 AM, "Alan Greenberg"
<https://email.secureserver.net/alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The drafting team did discuss this. The conclusion was (and staff
concurred if I remember correctly) that any further consultation
could reasonably be done as part of the PDP. We also talked about a
public forum in Sydney, the exact contents of which would depend on
how far along the WG (presuming we use a WG) had gotten.
I guess the question came down to whether we felt that some policy
development and non-policy recommendations were required regardless,
and whether the outcomes of pre-PDP consultation would change the
details of the recommendations to be put in a PDP charter. The answer
to the first question was yes, we did feel that PDP action was
required, and we did not think that the specific recommendations
would change. How a WG addresses the issues may well change, but
since it did not appear that the results of such consultation would
alter the PDP charter, there did not seem to be any reason to delay.
Although not discussed, I would envision a call for input on some
targeted questins as an early part of the process.
Alan
At 01/04/2009 06:09 PM, you wrote:
>I was re-reading the issues report and was reminded of this Staff
>recommendation:
>
>"In relation to the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request,
>ICANN staff notes that
>while most, if not all, outcomes might be achieved by the
>recommendations identified by the
>ALAC, it would be helpful for all parties concerned to engage in a more
>fulsome dialogue on
>the extent and detailed nature of the concerns to determine whether
>these are shared
>desired outcomes and if so, how these could best be addressed in policy
>work going
>forward, including a more robust discussion of the merits and drawbacks
>of various solutions
>to address agreed concerns. The GNSO Council might consider such an
>activity, which
>could take the form of one or more public workshops at an upcoming ICANN
>meeting, for
>example, as a precursor for the launch of a PDP as it would help to
>define and focus the
>policy development process on one or more specific proposed changes.
>While this could
>also be explored by a working group following the launch of a PDP, staff
>recommends
>further fact finding first to figure out what policy options might
>exist, and then conduct a PDP
>to assess the impact of those policy options and confirm community
>support for a preferred
>policy choice."
>
>I don't recall that we discussed whether we should follow this advice or
>not. Alan, is there
>a reason why your motion initiates a PDP instead of the fact finding
>that the Staff suggests
>be done first?
>
>
>Tim