Re: [council] Intended friendly amendment to the PEDNR motion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Seems a reasonable change to me.

Since I am making the motion on behalf of the DT, my suggestion is that
I run the change by them.

a.


On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:05 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> Avri and Allan,
> 
> The intended friendly amendment to PEDNR I am asking for is to replace
> the first paragraph of the RESOLVE section to the following:
> 
> "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:"
> 
> Reason: We just approved a set of amendments to the RAA and we have a
> group forming to discuss further changes to the RAA. For the RrC, it
> seems onerous to include the potential for RAA changs in every PDP that
> gets initiated and that's what the original motion portends. Item (ii)
> in the above amendmended paragraph uses language straight out of the
> recommendations in the Issues report.
> 
> Thanks for considering it.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
>