RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan,

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.
So although quite different processes, the end 
result can be virtually identical (for any given registry).
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.
Alan

At 11/04/2012 11:32 AM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> Dear Stéphane & fellow councillors,
>
> We have today discussed this motion during the 
> course of the Registries SG meeting.
> 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).
> The PDP process and the contractual negotiation 
> processes are essentially distinct and separate processes.
> Therefore, I?d like to propose a friendly 
> amendment to modify the motion in order to deal with this concern.
> I have attached suggested re-wording of the 
> motion to accommodate this concern.
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: 04 April 2012 14:22
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx GNSO
> Subject: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP
>
> All,
>
> You will remember that in CR the Council 
> expressed a desire to delay the thick whois PDP.
> Since then, the Council leadership and Staff have discussed this at length.
>
> 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.
> 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: 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9>http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3.9).
> Motion attached.
>
> Thanks,