ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP

  • To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Stéphane Van Gelder'" <Stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Motion to delay thick WHOIS PDP
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:44:26 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <00e201cd17f8$50903a10$f1b0ae30$@ipracon.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <F593E70C-DD92-468A-8FFD-EB8E9F69032C@indom.com> <00e201cd17f8$50903a10$f1b0ae30$@ipracon.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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.


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,


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


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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>