[council] PEDNR Motion

[Marika Konings]

Tim, please note that the recommendation you quoted from the Issues Report specifically relates to 'the desired outcomes stated by ALAC in its request', 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 ICANN'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" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> 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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090402/dce90635/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Results of Deletion and Renewal Consensus Policy Audit by ICANN Compliance Department
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:34:12 -0700
Size: 10429
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090402/dce90635/attachment.mht>