RE: [council] PEDNR Motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

The purpose of PDPs is to develop policy not work on contractual terms. The 
result of policy development work may impact registry or registrar contracts 
but that is not the purpose and to focus directly on contractual terms diverts 
from that purpose.  

I agree with you that the process should be to find the best possible 
resolution to the issues defined in the SoW but that doesn't require any 
reference to the RRA.  Moreover, the Council has another work effort that 
focuses on RAA issues so there really isn't need to mix the two.  If any 
resolution recommended affects RAA work, so be it, but that does not need to be 
a goal because that is too broad and could unnecessarily expand the scope of a 
PDP.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 1:29 PM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> 
> 
> I guess I don't understand why we should restrict the group 
> from making such a suggestion. The aim of the process should 
> be to find the best possible resolution to the issues raised.
> 
> That being said, I presented the outcome of the DT, and it 
> was moved by Avri and I think seconded by you (Chuck). 
> Motions to amend are certainly possible - specifically to 
> replace "ICANN compliance obligations and possible RAA changes" 
> with "and ICANN compliance obligations".
> 
> Tim also made another substantive change that I would like to 
> hear the rationale for.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 02/04/2009 01:17 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >Wouldn't we be better off avoiding confusing the PEDNR 
> motion with RAA 
> >issues and instead focus on the motion without reference to the RAA?
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:03 PM
> > > To: GNSO Council
> > > Subject: RE: [council] PEDNR Motion
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.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 ‘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"
> > > > 
> ><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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
>