GNSO Council Meeting 18 December

[Robin Gross]

Bill,

On the Post-Expiry Domain Name Recovery issue, I don't think it
matters too much whether the PDP vote happens on 8 Jan or 29 Jan.
And further clarification on the specified issues would probably be
helpful, although I don't know the specifics (or if it is just to
cause delay).

On the "Registration Abuse" issue, I would recommend not voting in
favor of any of those motions.  So often pet projects of a
constituency become a PDP by shear persistence of constantly putting
it on the agenda and counselors mistakenly think they have to vote
"yes" to initiate every PDP or WG that comes along.  But more often
then not, and when in doubt on how to vote, vote NO to initiate a new
ICANN policy because more often than not it just a special interest
package or non-technical policymaking.  That's my experience at least.

Best,
Robin


On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:59 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> Thanks, this is helpful.
>
> On Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, there's
>
> 1.  a motion that a decision on whether to initiate a PDP be
> delayed until 29 Jan to allow the staff time to clarify some topics
> in the Issues Report,
>
> 2.  a contingent motion from Avri, no seconds yet, that the Council
> consult constituencies in preparation for a vote on a PDP and other
> possible motions at the Council meeting on 8 January,
>
> 3.  a Chuck Gomes alternative that a decision on whether to
> initiate a PDP be delayed until the staff clarify some differently
> specified issues by 29 January.
>
> Do any of these seem congenial to the concerns you've expressed, or
> are you suggesting that we offer a different formulation (and if
> so, what)?
>
> On Registration Abuse, there's a motion by Avri (not seconded yet)
> that a drafting team be formed to create a proposed charter for a
> working group to investigate the open issues in the issues report,
> and that the WG charter should be ready for review by the council
> on or before 15 January and voted on 29 January. There's also
> another by Avri, not yet seconded, calling for initiation of a
> PDP.  So two speeds available now, plus contingent alternates if
> they fail.
>
> On the RAA, there's been much detailed discussion among the
> industry folks on the council list, but I've not had time to read
> through the RAA and come to a clear view on who's pushing what why
> to what effect.  The choices at present are motions 1) creating
> drafting team to create a proposed charter for a working group to
> investigate the open issues, 2) initiating a PDP, and contingent
> variants.
>
> Would be good to know where we collectively stand on these before
> voting tomorrow.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 5:06 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Thanks very much.  The issue of most concern to the constituency
>> that has a motion pending for Thursday is the Post-Expiration
>> Domain Name Recovery Issues Report.   We'd like to move forward
>> with further exploring this issue within the GNSO since it seems
>> some registrars may be abusing their position in the domain name
>> chain and over-charging consumers for their domains when their
>> registration lapses.  I don't know the answers, but I think it is
>> worth looking into since it may be an ICANN policy creating the
>> abuse (if there is any).
>>
>> The Registrations Abuse Policy is the Business Constituency's
>> continued efforts to make anonymous Internet use impossible, so
>> I'm not keen to move forward with that project.
>>
>> Can anyone else comment on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
>> motion pending?  RAA hasn't been a major issue for NCUC, so maybe
>> someone else who has been following that issue more closely can
>> comment on it.
>>
>> Any other comments on any of this issues pending before the
>> GNSO?   Especially the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
>> issue?  I'd be glad to see a NCUC representative introduce a
>> motion, or second a motion on this issue.  It was originally
>> raised by ALAC, but I do not think that (technically) ALAC can
>> introduce or 2nd it on the council.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The Council has a meeting on Thursday and there a number of
>>> motions on the table concerning the Registrar Accreditation
>>> Agreement, Registrations Abuse Policy, and Post-Expiration Domain
>>> Name Recovery.
>>>
>>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?18_dec_2008_motions
>>>
>>> If anyone has any input on these issues and how NCUC reps might
>>> address them, please let us know.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081217/0dab5529/attachment.html>