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

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the clarification, Alan.

To that point, I would ask the following

- What specifically is happening when a registrant can't get a name back from a 
reseller?  Is there a particular trend of behavior you're trying to prevent?  
Or is it just that the RAE should always be able to get a name back?
- What is the differential between what you see in reseller problems vs. 
direct-with-registrar problems?
- Because resellers are out of ICANN's purview, what is proposed as a solution, 
given that there are (by your statement) far fewer problems when dealing 
directly with registrars?

Perhaps also, as part of the research into this, it would be helpful to see 
what other industries do when addressing problems with resellers.  As also was 
pointed out on the call yesterday, the reseller model is employed by all kinds 
of businesses -- I think I would be surprised if there weren't practices 
somewhere that we could look at.



-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:14 PM
To: PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call


Mason, let me try to phrase this another way. It 
is not that there is a "problem presented by 
resellers". It is simply that when there is a 
problem that occurs in trying to reclaim a name 
shortly after expiration, it very often turns out 
that the RAE was dealing with a reseller. There 
is nothing that they do that a registrar might 
not do, but there are apparently far few problems 
when dealing directly with registrars.

Based on the discussions today that more than one 
registrar has over 30,0000 resellers each, perhaps this is not surprising.

Alan

At 18/08/2009 02:02 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
>I'm afraid there still is no clarity on the 
>problem, however you want to define it, being 
>presented by resellers.  I heard several times 
>in Sydney that resellers were the real 
>problem.  I've asked for clarification on this 
>list, or for a demonstration of how resellers 
>create difficulty for a user, and the extent to 
>which this is happening, but no one has done so or even replied.
>
>Could someone please do so for the benefit of this entire group?
>
>There's the separate issue of course of reseller 
>"control" by ICANN, which looks very much like 
>something out of the purview of this group.  I'm 
>more interested in what, if anything, users are experiencing via resellers.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 9:53 AM
>To: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Proposed agenda for PEDNR WG call
>
>
>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 today̢۪s PEDNR WG call. For
> >further details, p, 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 ‘so-called reseller that is likely a
> >Registrar̢̢۪ provided by Garth Bruen
> >+ Schedule for next and nd further meetings