RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Interim Report: Final Comments

[Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with James modifications. I believe they are fair and accurate.

I have concerns about one part of the document that I find to be factually 
confusing.  I have read it a couple of times, and I believe it leaves and 
incorrect impression with the reader.

It is in the area of the description of the Redemption Grace Period.   The 
document says and implies that the RGP is optional for Registries and 
Registrars.    I agree it is optional for Registries, even though I think they 
all have implemented it, I don't believe it is fair to portray the RGP as 
optional for Registrars.  Registrars have no say or sway as to if a domain 
enters the RGP phase after it is deleted.  That is entirely in the control of 
the Registry.  A Registrar can not prevent a domain from entering the RGP after 
deletion if the Registry has implemented the RGP.

Thinking aloud, I wonder if the point that was trying to be made is that the 
Registrar does not have to redeem the domain from RGP if they don't want to 
offer that service.  I guess in theory that is possible, although in theory one 
could argue that the Registrar could also decide to not offer the service of 
renewing domains at all.  Seems kinda silly to point out that a Registrar might 
decide to not offer a service in this document, but if that is what was the 
purpose, then we should be more clear.

I am concerned that the wording leads people to believe Registrars can prevent 
a domain from entering RGP after deletion, or that somehow RGP is in the 
control of the Registrar, when it is a Registry Service.

I don't believe that accurately portraying what is possible or not in RGP 
should be a matter of contention.

Can we perhaps fix this before the document is published ?

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 12:53 AM
To: James M. Bladel; PEDNR Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Interim Report: Final Comments

I find many of these last-minute additions quite inappropriate. In particular I 
find many of them not at all "objective" but presenting a very specific view.

I have no problem with including ALL of the points made during meetings, but 
they should leave the reader with the understanding that these were statements 
that were not universally accepted.

Please see my specific comments.

Alan

At 29/05/2010 10:37 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>Alan, Marika and Team:
>
>
>Attached, please find an edited "Clean Version" of the Draft Interim 
>Report, containing the comments of -some- of the Rr participants on the 
>WG.  in order to save time (it's a holiday weekend in the US) and to 
>reduce the consolidation burden on Marika, we've worked to produce a 
>set of combined comments.
>
>
>In general, they fall in to one of three categories:
>
>
>1.  Typos, error corrections, and other cosmetic and/or readability 
>changes.
>2.  Minor modifications of the language to present a more objective 
>point of view.
>3.  Insertion of points that were raised during the meetings and 
>teleconferences, or on the list, but omitted from earlier drafts.
>
>
>
>Thanks, and kudos to everyone for their hard work!
>
>
>J.
>
>-----------------
>James M. Bladel
>GoDaddy.com