[ALAC] Draft statement on PEDNR

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thanks for the changes, Alan. I can certainly support this.
 On Sep 2, 2011 4:24 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> At its meeting of 23 August 2011, the ALAC
> requested that I draft a statement on the PEDNR
> Final Report for discussion and ultimate approval
> by the ALAC. The initial draft was reviewed by
> the regional representatives on the ALAC ExCom
> and the revised draft below is now available for
> comment at
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+PEDNR+Workspace
> (https://community.icann.org/x/DYCYAQ).
>
> ALAC Chair, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, has requested
> that comments be submitted by ALAC and At-Large
> for a five day period, followed by a five day vote of the ALAC.
>
> The statement is reproduced here for your
> convenience. Comments should be posted to the Wiki.
>
> Alan
>
> --------------------------------------
>
> *DRAFT* ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration
> Domain Name Recovery Recommendations for ICANN Board Consideration
>
> The Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was
> initiated at the request of the ALAC in 2008, and
> we are pleased to see that it may now come to a positive conclusion.
>
> The original request was made because, at that
> time, there were absolutely no guarantees in
> place that a registrant could renew or otherwise
> recover a gTLD domain name if it was
> inadvertently allowed to expire. Earlier ICANN
> actions including the creation of a Redemption
> Grace Period (RGP) for most registries, and
> developing the Expired Domain Deletion Policy
> (EDDP Consensus Policy PDP) had been carried out
> with the intent of putting such guarantees in
> place, but business practices had changed and the guarantees no longer
existed.
>
> The originators of the request for the Issue
> Report which triggered the PDP had hopes that the
> end-result would be far more pro-registrant than
> what has ultimately come out of the PDP. This can
> be attributed to a number of causes, including
> the need of the PDP Working Group (WG) to come to
> a full consensus on the outcomes, and this of
> course had to include the Registrar Stakeholder Group.
>
> However, the largest problem can arguably be said
> to be the extreme difficulty in getting active
> and continued participation in an ICANN WG by
> those parties whose livelihood and business
> success do not depend on the PDP. To be clear, it
> is a major challenge to get users who are active
> in ICANN purely as volunteers to participate,
> particularly in a process which often takes close
> to three years. This clearly endangers the
> balance of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model.
>
> Given these conditions, the ALAC is pleased that
> some progress was made in advancing gTLD
> registrant rights and that ICANN will be taking
> positive action to educate, inform and support
> gTLD registrants, who are ultimately one of its
> core, often forgotten, stakeholders. As such, the
> ALAC encourages the Board to ratify the PDP
> Recommendations as approved by the GNSO.
>
> At the same time, the ALAC advises that the Board
> duly consider what might be done to ensure that,
> in the future, the multi-stakeholder model can be
> strengthened to allow users to more equitably
> influence the outcomes in future policy
> discussions. Such evolution is a core necessity
> identified by ICANN's Accountability and
> Transparency review as well as to meet the goals of its Strategic Plan.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)