ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

[council] Update on status of implementation of PEDNR Recommendations

  • To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Update on status of implementation of PEDNR Recommendations
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:29:26 -0800
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Ac4K0HgNeomlakZFSPq99wKNDHQxwQ==
  • Thread-topic: Update on status of implementation of PEDNR Recommendations
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117

Dear All,

As requested on today's GNSO Council meeting, please find below an update on
the status of implementation of the PEDNR recommendations from Mike Zupke,
Director Registrar Programs:

We are pleased to inform the Council that we plan to announce implementation
of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) within the next 10 days.
I understand there might be some frustration over the time it has taken to
get here, but in light of the many parallel projects currently underway,
such as RAA negotiations & registrant bill of rights, several significant
amendments to the IRTP, and our new gTLD operational readiness initiatives,
I think the state of progress is about where we might have expected it to
be, and is in fact, more or less on target with our original project plan.

The one last bit we need to do before rollout of the ERRP is get input from
affected parties (registries, registrars) about the amount of time they will
reasonably need to implement the policy changes. The PEDNR implementation
review team can expect to hear from me about that tomorrow.  With regard to
PEDNR¹s recommendation to create educational materials, we are scheduled to
join ALAC on its 26 February call to initiate the recommended consultative
process. We will also need to engage registrars and other stakeholders and
are in the process of determining what might be appropriate for the Beijing
meeting. Obviously, the consultation with ALAC, registrars, and other
stakeholders will require more time than would have been required were we to
develop materials in house, but this is the course the GNSO and the Board
recommended, and I think it will result in a better final product.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be of
further assistance.  And as always, I¹m available to councilors off list if
they have questions they¹d prefer to ask directly.

With best regards,

Marika

Sr. Policy Director
ICANN




Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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