RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
Title: Re: [council] PEDNR Motion
Thanks Marika.
I am curious as to why the word 'generally' was used in the
following sentence: "However, if a PDP
recommends binding new obligations on registries or registrars, these generally
would need to be on topics that are inside the picket-fence in order to be
enforceable."?
Chuck
As some of you requested feedback from staff, I would
like to let you know that ICANN Legal Counsel has confirmed that the question
of within scope /outside of scope relating to the initiation of a PDP relates
to whether an issue is within scope of GNSO policy-making (i.e. within ICANN’s
mission and linked to gTLDs). In the case of PEDNR, the issues fall within
ICANN’s mission and are related to gTLDS, so no higher threshold is required
for the initiation of a PDP. However, if a PDP recommends binding new
obligations on registries or registrars, these generally would need to be on
topics that are inside the picket-fence in order to be enforceable.
A
working group charter should outline narrowly defined issues to be addressed
by a WG that should not be broadened without the explicit agreement of the
GNSO Council. However, in examining these narrowly defined issues and
exploring potential solutions, it is appropriate for a WG to explore the best
solution possible whether it is a proposed new registry or registrar
obligation or some other sort of recommendation/solution.
Apologies for
the delay in responding.
Best regards,
Marika
On
4/2/09 11:55 PM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks Alan. I forgot about
that.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 5:46
PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR
Motion
>
>
> I am referring to the voting threshold needed
to INITIATE a
> PDP. According to the Bylaws Annex A
3.c
>
> "A vote of more than 33% of the Council members present
in
> favor of initiating the PDP will suffice to initiate the
PDP;
> unless the Staff Recommendation stated that the issue is
not
> properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process or
the
> GNSO, in which case a Supermajority Vote of the Council
>
members present in favor of initiating the PDP will be
> required to
initiate the PDP."
>
> Although the start of it was before my
time, I was told that
> PDP06 (gTLD Contractual Conditions) was deemed
by ICANN Legal
> Counsel to be outside of GNSO Scope and required the
higher threshold.
>
> In this present case, the Issues Report
says and I have had
> it confirmed that the issue is within scope of
the GNSO.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 02/04/2009 05:16
PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Alan,
> >
> >Please
see my comments inserted below.
> >
> >Chuck
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009
3:40 PM
> > > To: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council
> > >
Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > >
> >
>
> > > Tim, I will let Marika definitively address
that.
> > > But here is my understanding.
> >
>
> > > There are two types of "out-of-scope":
> >
>
> > > - Those that are deemed by legal council to be out of
the GNSO
> > > scope, and those require a higher threshold to
initiate a PDP.
> >
> >Chuck: I do not know to what you
are referring regarding the latter,
> >'those require a higher
threshold to initiate a PDP'.
> Please explain.
> >
>
> >
> > > - Those that are out-of-scope of the picket
fence. If
> deemed to be
> > > within Council scope as
above, they do not require the higher
> > > threshold, but of
course cannot be used to set a consensus policy.
> >
>
>Chuck: Again, where does the 'higher threshold'
> >concept come
from. In the case of possible consensus
> policies, if
the
> >Council recommends a consensus policy with a
supermajority
> vote, then
> >the threshold for the Board
rejecting it is higher than it is if the
> >Council recommends it
with a simple majority vote. Is that what you
> >are
referring to?
> >
> > >
> > > I was told
that the entire PEDNR issue is within GNSO
> scope, and it
>
> > was worded as such based on that advice. But clearly only
>
parts are
> > > within the picket fence of the RAA.
> >
>
> > > All of this is not what I understood going into this
process, but
> > > *IF* I got it right, that is the current
interpretation
> according to
> > > staff.
> >
>
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > At
02/04/2009 02:43 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > >
> > >
>If that's the type of thing we want this group to look
> at then
it
> > > >requires a different threshold of approval,
correct? It's not
> > > >appropriate to try and include out
of scope things with in
> > > scope things
> > >
>because the latter has a lower threshold of approval to
> get
started.
> > > >
> > > >So perhaps that's the
fundamental question. But I suggest
> > > this motion
>
> > >stick with what's in scope.
> > > >
>
> > >Tim
> > > >
> > > >
-------- Original Message --------
> > >
>Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > > >From: Alan
Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > >Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 1:14 pm
> > > >To:
GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >Tim, We are talking
to different ends. I am talking
> about changes
> > >
>to how compliance is measured or enforced.
> > >
>
> > > >I will give a specific and current example. The
February 2009
> > > >Contractual Compliance Semi-Annual
Report. One of the
> measures was
> > > >whether
Registrars were honoring the Deletion and
> Renewal Consensus
>
> > >Policy. This was carried out by reviewing Registrar web
sites.
> > > >
> > > >ICANN Counsel has
confirmed the a Registrar cannot avoid their
> > >
>contractual obligations by simply sub-contracting the
> > >
responsibilities
> > > >to others. This is explicitly
reinforced in the recently
> > > approved RAA
> > >
>Amendments. The Registrar is responsible if their
> > >
subcontractor is not
> > > >adhering to the
agreement.
> > > >
> > > >However, compliance
staff have routinely said that they
> > > cannot
consider
> > > >reseller issues, because ICANN does not have
a contract
> with these
> > > >resellers. However, if
one is to try to audit a
> registrar who has
> > >
>sub-contracted obligations to a reseller, one must look
> at
whether
> > > >their resellers are doing the job properly -
there is no
> > > other way for
> > > >ICANN to
independently conduct such an audit. Requiring that
> > > ICANN
at
> > > >least sample resellers for those Registrars who use
them
> should be
> > > >mandatory.
> > >
>
> > > >To this end, I may be mistaken, but I don't
believe that the
> > > RAA (old
> > > >or new)
requires that Registrars disclose to ICANN who their
> > >
resellers
> > > >are. Yet without this information, how can
ICANN even
> > > pretend that they
> > > >are
auditing their contracts. Adding such a requirement is
> > >
exactly the
> > > >kind of issue that could only be addressed
under the "advice
> > > for future
> > > >RAA
amendments" type of PDP output.
> > > >
> > >
>Alan
> > > >
> > > >At 02/04/2009 01:44
PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > > > >Alan,
> > > >
>
> > > > >My amendment uses the verbiage right out of
the issues
> > > report. But to
> > > >
>answer you question directly, I don't see any reason
> to include
it.
> > > > >
> > > > >As Staff suggests
in the issues report, the TF or WG
> > > should consider
>
> > > >information from compliance Staff about how
related
> > > current policy is
> > > >
>enforced (related RAA provisions and related consensus
>
policies).
> > > > >This information could be used by the
group to craft
> > > consensus policy
> > > >
>or consensus policy changes that complaince Staff could
> >
> actually enforce.
> > > > >That's an expected
consideration in any policy
> > > developement work and
>
> > > >doesn't really need to be spelled out.
> > >
> >
> > > > >Tim
> > > > >
>
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > >
> >Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > > >
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > >Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 12:06 pm
> > > >
>To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Tim,
we may agree to differ on this.
> > > > >
> >
> > >In your proposed replacement motion, you also dropped
and
> > > reference
> > > > >to the PDP
process making recommendations to ICANN
> > > compliance
staff.
> > > > >Do you have a reason for excluding this as
well?
> > > > >
> > > > >Alan
>
> > > >
> > > > >At 02/04/2009 12:03 PM, Tim
Ruiz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
>Alan,
> > > > > >
> > > > >
>That makes no sense whatsoever. What RAA changes could they
> >
> > > >recommend that would be out of scope that would solve
an
> > > in scope
> > > > > >issue they are
considering? And why would they do that
> > > if the
issue
> > > > > >is in scope? Why not just put it in
terms of a
> consensus policy?
> > > > > >And how
could a change to the RAA be less invasive than
> > > a
consensus
> > > > > >policy, for all practical purposes
they have the same effect?
> > > > > >
> >
> > > >What this runs the risk of is the TF or WG skewing off.
Any
> > > > > >situation where an out of scope change
to the RAA would
> > > resolve an
> > > > >
>in scope issue would be so extremely rare (and I assert
> >
> impossible)
> > > > > >that it is not worth
running this risk.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >Tim
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> -------- Original Message --------
> > > > >
>Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > > > >
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > > >Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 10:41 am
> > >
> > >To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >Tim, two issues:
> > > > > >
> > >
> > >First, just because we say that the group can make
>
> > RECOMMENDATION
> > > > > >on ways the PEDNR
issues could best e addressed through a
> > > > >
>future RAA (non-picket fence) change does NOT give them the
> >
> > > >latitude to address non-PEDNR issues. Although it
is
> certainly
> > > jumping the gun
> > >
> > >to consider PDP outcomes, one could imagine that a
>
> > possible outcome
> > > > > >is a
recommendation that a PEDNR issue would best be
> > > addressed
by
> > > > > >some specific contractual term of the
RAA. Not within the
> > > > > >picket fence, not
binding, but a bit of advice that
> could then
> > > >
> >not be lost, but used as per the (hopefully
> existent)
process
> > > > > >of RAA amendment.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >I am not really expecting
such "RAA-suggestion"
> > > > > >outcomes. But if it
becomes obvious to the WG that
> this is the
> > > >
> >least invasive away of addressing a problem, they should
>
> > be allowed
> > > > > >to suggest it without
them being accused of broadening
> > > their scope.
> >
> > > >That is all it was meant to do.
> > > >
> >
> > > > > >I understand that there are some
people who want to
> use a "thin
> > > > > >edge
of the wedge" to address every RAA issue under the
> > > sun,
but I
> > > > > >think that Staff have crafted a pretty
narrow
> definition here.
> > > > > >
>
> > > > >Alan
> > > > > >
> >
> > > >At 02/04/2009 11:24 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >It's unfortunate that
Staff supported such a
> concept, and I
> > > > >
> >personally believe it is seriously flawed. If we don't
> >
> form WGs
> > > > > > >with specific focus we
run the risk of them running on
> > > and on -
> > >
> > > >getting sidetracked in multiple directions.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >Clearly, a PDP
WG could come back and say: "We do not
> > > recommend
>
> > > > > >any policy at this time, but suggest that the
following be
> > > > > > >considered as a best
practice..." That's much
> > > different than the
> >
> > > > >WG spending time hashing out potential changes to
the RAA.
> > > > > > >For one thing, if the issue is
in scope they don't have
> > > to. A consensus policy IS a
change to the RAA.
> > > > > > >If they conclude
there is not a need for a policy,
> > > then why would
>
> > > > > >they consider RAA changes? That is either
a
> > > contradiction, or it
> > > > > >
>gets them off looking at things they were not
> > >
chartered to consider.
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > > >For the PEDNR PDP being contemplated, Staff
Council
> > > deemed it in scope.
> > > > >
> >So if the PDP WG is formed it will look at possible
> >
> new policy or
> > > > > > >policy changes (both
of which are in effect changes to
> > > the RAA),
> >
> > > > >and perhaps they will also consider best
practices.
> > > But what is
> > > > > >
>the point of looking at other RAA changes? The
> issue they
are
> > > > > > >chartered for is deemed in scope so
they don't need to
> > > - they can
> > > > >
> >recommend a policy. If they are looking at RAA changes
> >
> for something else, why?
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>Tim
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > >
> >Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > > > >
> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > > > >Date: Thu, April 02, 2009 10:02 am
> >
> > > > >To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > > >I slept in a bit today, and apparently I missed
the
> > > start of the party!
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > >Let me try to clarify things.
First, there are two
> variants
> > > > > >
>of PDPs, both of which can be "in scope for GNSO
> > >
consideration". I
> > > > > > >must admit that I was
not clear on some of this when the
> > > > > >
>discussions started, but I think/hope that what I
> have
below
> > > > > > >reflect the opinions of both
Marika and ICANN Counsel.
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > > >1. Those that formulate a consensus policy for
adoption by
> > > > > > >the Board. Clearly the
resultant policy must also be with
> > > the scope
> >
> > > > >of the definition of consensus policy within
the
> applicable
> > > > > > >contract (within
the "picket fence").
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > >2. Those that give advice to the Board. They may
be
> > > > > > >completely off-topic from contract
allowed
> consensus policies.
> > > The new gTLD
>
> > > > > >policy is such an example. It is not binding on
contracted
> > > > > > >parties. Such PDPs can even
be deemed out of scope for
> > > the GNSO.
> > >
> > > >The Contractual Terms PDP06 was an example - it
>
> > required a higher
> > > > > > >threshold
to start.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >During the discussions that led to where we are
> today
(both
> > > > > > >in the DT and before), and as
indicated in the
> Issues Report.
> > > > > >
>The problems that we are discussing may be
> addressed
through
> > > > > > >a variety of mechanisms.
Council has been very
> leery of WGs
> > > > > >
>that enlarge their charters while operating, so it was felt
> >
> important
> > > > > > >to make it clear that
all forms of output are
> allowed in this
> > > > >
> >case. The Motion was an attempt at saying that there
> >
> is no reason
> > > > > > >to limit a PDP to
just one type of output if its
> > > > > >
>deliberations lead it to belive that several are needed to
> >
> > > > >address
> > > the problem
> >
> > > > >properly.
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > >a) those which are within the
picket fence in the
> RAA could
> > > > > >
>result in a consensus policy recommendation to the Board.
> >
> > > > >b) those that would require changes to the RAA but
are
> > > outside of
> > > > > > >the
picket fence and would have no more import than
> > > other
input
> > > > > > >from the community into future
revisions. But
> > > importantly, they
> > > >
> > >would not be lost as they would be if they could
> not
be one
> > > > > > >aspect of the output of the
PDP.
> > > > > > >We have too much work to do to
analyze problems and
> > > then simply
> > > >
> > >discard the results.
> > > > > > >c)
there could be recommendation for changes in
> > > compliance
made
> > > > > > >to the Board for implementation by
ICANN compliance staff.
> > > > > > >d) there could
be recommendations for best practices for
> > > > > >
>Registrars, which would be no more than just that -
> > >
> > > >recommendations not binding on anyone unless
> >
> Registrars choose to
> > > > > > >follow
them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>The entire intent to be able to address the problem that
> >
> > > > >users see from a holistic point of view and
look
> for the best
> > > > > > >way to
address it, with the least amount of "thou
> shalt do".
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >We always have
the worry about a PDP being hijacked
> > > and discuss
>
> > > > > >issues which were not included in the Issues
Report or the
> > > > > > >Charter. In this case,
Staff has written the
> > > recommendation which
> >
> > > > >were quoted in the motion pretty restrictively. As
the
> > > submitter
> > > > > > >of the
request for Issues Report, I actually wish they
> > > had
given
> > > > > > >more latitude. But that *IS* what
they said, and the
> > > DT decided
> > > > >
> >to not attempt to change them.
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > >Alan
> > > > >
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >At 02/04/2009 09:40 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > > > >
> > >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.
> > gree> > nberg@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council
> >
> > > > > ><https://email.secureserver.net/council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
>Tim, please note that the recommendation you quoted from
> >
> > > > > >the Issues Report specifically relates
to
> > > > > >
> > > >
>
>
>
ÃÃƃ‚¢Ã‚€À
>
> ˜the
> > > > desired outcomes
utcomes stated by ALAC in
> > > > > > >
>its
> > > >
> >
>
requestâÂÂÂÂÃ
>
> ‚€ÃƒƒÃ‚‚™,
> >
> > > some
of wh 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
> > > >ƒâ€šÃ‚â„¢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
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>