X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] via 66.196.100.214; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:22:58 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [132.206.27.48]
Authentication-Results: mta436.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=mcgill.ca; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 132.206.27.48 (EHLO drizzle.cc.mcgill.ca) (132.206.27.48)
by mta436.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:22:58 -0700
Received: from mailscan2.cc.mcgill.ca (mailscan2.CC.McGill.CA [132.216.77.249])
by drizzle.cc.mcgill.ca (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.3) with ESMTP id l3AHMj1T004274;
Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:22:47 -0400
Received: from TP-X31.mcgill.ca (vpn86107.VPN.McGill.CA [132.216.86.107])
by mailscan2.cc.mcgill.ca (8.14.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l3AHM62x007793;
Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:22:10 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:53:50 -0400
To: Danny Younger <[log in to unmask]>,
Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
From: Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [council] Domain Tasting
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>
<[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=====================_311818210==.ALT"
Content-Length: 6493
--=====================_311818210==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My first reply (saying I would answer today) was=20
bounced by the NCUC-DISCUSS list since I am not=20
an authorized sender. Please forward my reply there if you wish. Alan
At 4/9/2007 03:24 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>Dear Mawaki and Alan,
>
>Re: "Our intent is to have a draft request for an
>Issues Report ready by April 23, and the request
>finalized by April 30."
>
>I am baffled by these dates.
I will address this under your question 4/5.
>(1) The minutes of the March 6 ALAC Meeting state:
>
>Policy Matters
>Domain Tasting: Update from Nick on Issues Report,
>start a PDP already (WS suggests)
>There was discussion as to whether the existing
>document was of the correct standard to be considered
>an Issues report (Nick will check with Glenn) and if
>so what would be the best route to take to raise a
>PDP. The options suggested being:
>=95 Ask Gnso staff to do an issues report which will
>then require a positive vote to take it further
>=95 Go straight to the Board to request a PDP
>=95 Both of the above options combined so that if Gnso
>didn=92t have enough vote the Board could insist the PDP
>be started.
>
>Carlos/Jos=E9 called for a vote on trying to initiate a
>PDP =AD no objections, VOTE PASSED
The draft minutes do not fully reflect the=20
discussion. The audio recording better is a=20
better source (minutes 16-31). You will see that=20
early in the discussion, I asked if someone could=20
describe exactly what the proper process was to=20
request and Issues Report and PDP. This was=20
unfortunately not answered during the call. As it=20
turns out, there was significant misinformation=20
among both ALAC members and staff regarding the proper formal procedure.
Much of the discussion focused on drafting a=20
document related to Domain Tasting (and perhaps=20
other issues) to go to the At-Large community=20
which is the document that Izumi wrote and=20
distributed in several forms. I was charged with=20
investigating the formal procedure. There was a=20
vote (preamble to it at minute 30 of the mp3) a=20
positive affirmation of the ALAC to begin the PDP=20
process. Since the ALAC has not mandate to=20
actually start a Policy Development Process, it=20
could be nothing more that statement of support for a PDP.
At the Lisbon meeting, I did verify what the=20
proper process was. It took several ICANN staff=20
people plus General Counsel. I distributed it to=20
ALAC lists at that time, but include it here for clarity:
According to the Bylaws, the way that the ALAC=20
can trigger a Policy Development Process (PDP) is=20
to formally request an Issues Report from ICANN=20
staff. This issues report must be delivered=20
within 15 days. The report can them be presented=20
to the GNSO and the GNSO must vote on whether to=20
start a PDP within 15 days of receipt of the=20
Issues Report. Assuming that ICANN staff agree=20
that this is indeed an ICANN "policy" issue, a=20
33% vote by the GNSO triggers a PDP. If staff=20
does not agree that it is a policy issue, it=20
requires a 66% vote of the GNSO to trigger a PDP.=20
The Issues Report can also be submitted to the=20
Board which, if it chooses, can vote to direct=20
the GNSO to initiate a PDP (for this entire=20
process, see http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA).
>(2) If the vote passed on March 6, ICANN Staff (per
>the bylaws) should have had an issues report ready
>within 15 days.
As noted above, the March 6 vote was not to=20
request and Issues Report. Perhaps it could have=20
been if we knew the process at that time, but it=20
wasn't. In retrospect, that is probably a good thing - see question 4/5.
>(3) If there was some type of ALAC foul-up, then
>matters should have been cleared up with a new vote at
>Lisbon when Domain Tasting was again on the ALAC
>Agenda (they were once again reviewing the 18 August
>2006 Staff Issues report prepared by Bruce Beckwith
>that had been updated by ICANN Staff on 6 February
>2007).
The document that Bruce wrote (as updated in=20
February) is a good reference on Domain Tasting,=20
although it does intermix the issue of Domain=20
Monetization which is a completely different (but=20
related) subject. However, it is not an Issues=20
Report (note the capitals). Aside from any=20
specific reasons, the Introductory Note says:
It is provided to the community for informational=20
purposes only. It was presented originally on a=20
basis that it was for the internal use of the=20
ALAC only, and as such it has not been reviewed=20
for legal correctness by the Office of the=20
General Counsel and as a consequence does not=20
have any standing except as an informational note.
As it turns out, comments from ICANN Counsel are=20
an important and mandatory component of a formal Issues Report.
>(4) If matters had been cleared up through a new vote
>in Lisbon, then we would be expecting the Staff Issues
>report to be released prior to April 15.
>
>(5) Finally, what possible bearing do the views of
>the GNSO Constituencies have on the preparation of an
>Issues Report? Constituency views are solicited after
>the issuance of such a report, not prior.
The matters were cleared up. However, in=20
discussing the issue with staff and various GNSO=20
people, several things became clear.
- The mandated 15 calendar days that staff are=20
given to create an Issues Report is probably not enough to do it properly;
- If the Issues Report and the PDP are to be well=20
focused, it is important that the various affected bodies/constituencies=
have
input into the process early on. Such input is=20
not mandatory, but those who have been through=20
the process before feel that giving staff=20
guidance as to what the important issues are will=20
help ensure that these issues are covered in the=20
Issues Report. It is particularly important to=20
ensure that the request makes it clear why we=20
think that it is indeed a "Policy" issue that is=20
within ICANN's mission and subject to the=20
Consensus Policy clauses of the registrar=20
agreements, and not just a contractual terms=20
which cannot be unilaterally changed by ICANN.
- Prior support from various constituencies will=20
improve the chances of success in both approving a PDP process and the PDP's
ultimate success. In addition, some GNSO=20
constituencies were discussing submitting their=20
own request for an Issues Report, and all parties=20
felt that it was better to work together rather than in parallel.
In light of the above, the ALAC has passed a=20
motion that we draft a request for an issues=20
report on Domain Tasting with the request=20
delivered to ICANN staff no later than April 30,=20
2007. This gave staff a heads-up that the request=20
was coming, while giving us a chance to carefully formulate the request.
>Totally confused by whatever it is that the ALAC is
>doing...
Hopefully less confused now. There is no question=20
that the PDP process is convoluted, and this is=20
the first time (to my knowledge) that ALAC has=20
ventured into this territory. It has been a=20
learning experience for both the ALAC and ICANN staff.
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger
>
>
>
>--- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > FYI, and action, if relevant.
> >
> > --- Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:25:25 -0400
> > > To: GNSO Council <[log in to unmask]>
> > > From: Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Subject: [council] Domain Tasting
> > >
> > > As mentioned briefly at the GNSO Council meeting
> > in Lisbon,
> > > the
> > > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in the
> > process of
> > > submitting a
> > > request for an Issues Report from ICANN staff on
> > the subject
> > > of
> > > Domain Tasting - specifically the exploitation of
> > the 5-day
> > > (or 120
> > > hour) Add Grace Period during which a domain can
> > be deleted
> > > (among
> > > other things) for a full credit of registration
> > charges.
> > >
> > > In order to maximize the chances for a properly
> > framed Issues
> > > report
> > > and ultimately a successful PDP (if deemed
> > necessary), it has
> > > been
> > > recommended that the ALAC seek support from
> > interested GNSO
> > > constituencies including their views of why the
> > domain tasting
> > > policy
> > > should be changed, the positive or negative
> > effects of such a
> > > change,
> > > and how such a change falls under the scope of the
> > GNSO PDP
> > > (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA)
> > and Consensus
> > >
> > > Policies as defined in Registry agreements.
> > >
> > > Our intent is to have a draft request for an
> > Issues Report
> > > ready by
> > > April 23, and the request finalized by April 30. I
> > therefore
> > > request
> > > your input with due haste.
> > >
> > > Alan Greenberg
> > > ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________=
_________
>Looking for earth-friendly autos?
>Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
>http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
--=====================_311818210==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
My first reply (saying I would answer today) was bounced by the
NCUC-DISCUSS list since I am not an authorized sender. Please forward my
reply there if you wish. Alan<br><br>
At 4/9/2007 03:24 PM, Danny Younger wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Dear Mawaki and Alan,<br><br>
Re: "Our intent is to have a draft request for an<br>
Issues Report ready by April 23, and the request<br>
finalized by April 30."<br><br>
I am baffled by these dates.</blockquote><br>
I will address this under your question 4/5. <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">(1) The minutes of the
March 6 ALAC Meeting state:<br><br>
Policy Matters<br>
Domain Tasting: Update from Nick on Issues Report,<br>
start a PDP already (WS suggests)<br>
There was discussion as to whether the existing<br>
document was of the correct standard to be considered<br>
an Issues report (Nick will check with Glenn) and if<br>
so what would be the best route to take to raise a<br>
PDP. The options suggested being:<br>
=95 Ask Gnso staff to do an issues report which will<br>
then require a positive vote to take it further<br>
=95 Go straight to the Board to request a PDP<br>
=95 Both of the above options combined so that if Gnso<br>
didn=92t have enough vote the Board could insist the PDP<br>
be started.<br><br>
Carlos/Jos=E9 called for a vote on trying to initiate a<br>
PDP =AD no objections, VOTE PASSED</blockquote><br>
The draft minutes do not fully reflect the discussion. The audio
recording better is a better source (minutes 16-31). You will see that
early in the discussion, I asked if someone could describe exactly what
the proper process was to request and Issues Report and PDP. This was
unfortunately not answered during the call. As it turns out, there was
significant misinformation among both ALAC members and staff regarding
the proper formal procedure.<br><br>
Much of the discussion focused on drafting a document related to Domain
Tasting (and perhaps other issues) to go to the At-Large community which
is the document that Izumi wrote and distributed in several forms. I was
charged with investigating the formal procedure. There was a vote
(preamble to it at minute 30 of the mp3) a positive affirmation of the
ALAC to begin the PDP process. Since the ALAC has not mandate to actually
start a Policy Development Process, it could be nothing more that
statement of support for a PDP.<br><br>
At the Lisbon meeting, I did verify what the proper process was. It took
several ICANN staff people plus General Counsel. I distributed it to ALAC
lists at that time, but include it here for clarity:
<dl>
<dd>According to the Bylaws, the way that the ALAC can trigger a Policy
Development Process (PDP) is to formally request an Issues Report from
ICANN staff. This issues report must be delivered within 15 days. The
report can them be presented to the GNSO and the GNSO must vote on
whether to start a PDP within 15 days of receipt of the Issues Report.
Assuming that ICANN staff agree that this is indeed an ICANN
"policy" issue, a 33% vote by the GNSO triggers a PDP. If staff
does not agree that it is a policy issue, it requires a 66% vote of the
GNSO to trigger a PDP. The Issues Report can also be submitted to the
Board which, if it chooses, can vote to direct the GNSO to initiate a PDP
(for this entire process, see
<a href=3D"http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA" eudora=3D"autourl=
">
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA</a>).<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">
</dl>(2) If the vote passed on March 6, ICANN Staff (per<br>
the bylaws) should have had an issues report ready<br>
within 15 days.</blockquote><br>
As noted above, the March 6 vote was not to request and Issues Report.
Perhaps it could have been if we knew the process at that time, but it
wasn't. In retrospect, that is probably a good thing - see question
4/5.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">(3) If there was some t=
ype
of ALAC foul-up, then<br>
matters should have been cleared up with a new vote at<br>
Lisbon when Domain Tasting was again on the ALAC<br>
Agenda (they were once again reviewing the 18 August<br>
2006 Staff Issues report prepared by Bruce Beckwith<br>
that had been updated by ICANN Staff on 6 February<br>
2007).</blockquote><br>
The document that Bruce wrote (as updated in February) is a good
reference on Domain Tasting, although it does intermix the issue of
Domain Monetization which is a completely different (but related)
subject. However, it is not an Issues Report (note the capitals). Aside
from any specific reasons, the Introductory Note says:
<dl>
<dd>It is provided to the community for informational purposes only. It
was presented originally on a basis that it was for the internal use of
the ALAC only, and as such it has not been reviewed for legal correctness
by the Office of the General Counsel and as a consequence does not have
any standing except as an informational note.
</dl>As it turns out, comments from ICANN Counsel are an important and
mandatory component of a formal Issues Report.<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">(4) If matters had been
cleared up through a new vote<br>
in Lisbon, then we would be expecting the Staff Issues<br>
report to be released prior to April 15.<br>
<br>
(5) Finally, what possible bearing do the views of<br>
the GNSO Constituencies have on the preparation of an<br>
Issues Report? Constituency views are solicited after<br>
the issuance of such a report, not prior.</blockquote><br>
The matters were cleared up. However, in discussing the issue with staff
and various GNSO people, several things became clear.<br><br>
- The mandated 15 calendar days that staff are given to create an Issues
Report is probably not enough to do it properly;<br><br>
- If the Issues Report and the PDP are to be well focused, it is
important that the various affected bodies/constituencies have
<br>
input into the process early on. Such input is not mandatory, but those
who have been through the process before feel that giving staff guidance
as to what the important issues are will help ensure that these issues
are covered in the Issues Report. It is particularly important to ensure
that the request makes it clear why we think that it is indeed a
"Policy" issue that is within ICANN's mission and subject to
the Consensus Policy clauses of the registrar agreements, and not just a
contractual terms which cannot be unilaterally changed by ICANN.<br><br>
- Prior support from various constituencies will improve the chances of
success in both approving a PDP process and the PDP's <br>
ultimate success. In addition, some GNSO constituencies were discussing
submitting their own request for an Issues Report, and all parties felt
that it was better to work together rather than in parallel.<br><br>
In light of the above, the ALAC has passed a motion that we draft a
request for an issues report on Domain Tasting with the request delivered
to ICANN staff no later than April 30, 2007. This gave staff a heads-up
that the request was coming, while giving us a chance to carefully
formulate the request.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Totally confused by whatever =
it
is that the ALAC is<br>
doing...</blockquote><br>
Hopefully less confused now. There is no question that the PDP process is
convoluted, and this is the first time (to my knowledge) that ALAC has
ventured into this territory. It has been a learning experience for
both the ALAC and ICANN staff.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Best regards,<br>
Danny Younger<br><br>
<br><br>
--- Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> wrote:<br><br>
> FYI, and action, if relevant.<br>
> <br>
> --- Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:25:25 -0400<br>
> > To: GNSO Council <[log in to unmask]><br>
> > From: Alan Greenberg <[log in to unmask]><br>
> > Subject: [council] Domain Tasting<br>
> > <br>
> > As mentioned briefly at the GNSO Council meeting<br>
> in Lisbon,<br>
> > the <br>
> > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in the<br>
> process of<br>
> > submitting a <br>
> > request for an Issues Report from ICANN staff on<br>
> the subject<br>
> > of <br>
> > Domain Tasting - specifically the exploitation of<br>
> the 5-day<br>
> > (or 120 <br>
> > hour) Add Grace Period during which a domain can<br>
> be deleted<br>
> > (among <br>
> > other things) for a full credit of registration<br>
> charges.<br>
> > <br>
> > In order to maximize the chances for a properly<br>
> framed Issues<br>
> > report <br>
> > and ultimately a successful PDP (if deemed<br>
> necessary), it has<br>
> > been <br>
> > recommended that the ALAC seek support from<br>
> interested GNSO <br>
> > constituencies including their views of why the<br>
> domain tasting<br>
> > policy <br>
> > should be changed, the positive or negative<br>
> effects of such a<br>
> > change, <br>
> > and how such a change falls under the scope of the<br>
> GNSO PDP <br>
> >
(<a href=3D"http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA" eudora=3D"autour=
l">
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA</a>)<br>
> and Consensus<br>
> > <br>
> > Policies as defined in Registry agreements.<br>
> > <br>
> > Our intent is to have a draft request for an<br>
> Issues Report<br>
> > ready by <br>
> > April 23, and the request finalized by April 30. I<br>
> therefore<br>
> > request <br>
> > your input with due haste.<br>
> > <br>
> > Alan Greenberg<br>
> > ALAC Liaison to the GNSO<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> <br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________________________=
________<br>
Looking for earth-friendly autos? <br>
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green
Center.<br>
<a href=3D"http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/" eudora=3D"autourl">
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/</a></blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_311818210==.ALT--