RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

James, I think that you proposal is a valid thing 
to discuss, but I do not believe that we can take it as a given.
At 18/08/2009 11:07 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:

> Thanks, Marika.
>
> Before we dive too deeply into questions about resellers, I'd encourage
> folks to review the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (adopted early
> by many major registrars).  Specifically, it contains provisions
> addressing the relationship between registrars and resellers, beginning
> with the new language in Sec. 3.12.
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/agreements.html
>
> With this in mind, I would propose that we make no distinction between
> "resellers" and "registrars" for the purposes of this PDP.
>
> Thanks--
>
> J.
>
>
>    -------- Original Message --------
>  Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call
>  From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>  Date: Tue, August 18, 2009 2:37 am
>  To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>  Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call Dear All,
>
>  Please find below the proposed agenda for todayâ??s PEDNR WG call. For
> further details, please see the WG wiki at
> https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/.
>
>  With best regards,
>
>  Marika
>
>  Proposed Agenda
>
>
> + Roll-call
> + Finalization of PEDNR public comment announcement
> + Review of constituency input template
> + Continue discussion on registrar survey ­ which informmation is
> required to answer charter questions?
> + Discussion of example of a â??so-called reseller that is likely a
> Registrarâ?? provided by Garth Bruen
> + Schedule for next and further meetings