<html>
<body>
Jonathan,<br><br>
I agree that the PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes
are essentially distinct and separate processes, but that does not
preclude a particular outcome as a result of either. For example, domain
tasting was essentially eliminated in .org, .info and .biz through RSTEP
requests, which is essentially a mutually agreed upon contract change. A
PDP resulted in a requirement for .com and .net (and others) to implement
a change very similar to that which had been suggested in the Afilias and
Neustar RSTEPS.<br><br>
So although quite different processes, the end result can be virtually
identical (for any given registry).<br><br>
On perhaps a more substantive issue, the suggested amendment changes the
motion from one that delays the process for a relatively finite defined
time, to one that could go on forever.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 11/04/2012 11:32 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Stéphane & fellow
councillors,<br>
<br>
We have today discussed this motion during the course of the Registries
SG meeting.<br>
<br>
A concern was expressed and discussed in some detail about the reason for
delay and directly linking a PDP process (on Thick WHOIS) with
contractual negotiations (on .com).<br>
The PDP process and the contractual negotiation processes are essentially
distinct and separate processes.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I’d like to propose a friendly amendment to modify the motion
in order to deal with this concern.<br>
<br>
I have attached suggested re-wording of the motion to accommodate this
concern.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
<br>
Jonathan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stéphane Van
Gelder<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 April 2012 14:22<br>
<b>To:</b> council@gnso.icann.org GNSO<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
You will remember that in CR the Council expressed a desire to delay the
thick whois PDP.<br>
<br>
Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at
length.<br>
<br>
First, it has been deemed necessary to have a formal motion to do this.
Due to the deadline for motions being today, I have asked that a motion
to that effect be prepared and I am submitting this today. I am doing
this as Chair, from an administrative point of view, to help see this
process moved forward.<br>
<br>
Second, we've had extensive discussions on what voting threshold should
be used for this motion. In the end, we have ascertained that as there is
no specific reference to a PDP suspension process in the bylaws, the
default threshold should be used (see bylaws section 3.9:
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9">
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9</a>).<br>
<br>
Motion attached.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>