Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Additional proposed recommendations

[Ron Wickersham <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> Ron,
>
> I am sorry to put you on the spot, but could you please go into further
> detail when you say "do not feel it is a substitute for the multiple
> issues that have arisen in public comments and WG deliberations".
hi Jeff,

what i was getting at was perhaps my misunderstanding of the new 5-day
grace period post expiration proposal.    what i meant was that this
one proposal would not, in my mind, satisfy what we should come together
to publish as a final report to address all the issues that have come up
over the course of our meetings.

i'm paraphrasing from memory, but the list of advantages/objectives for
this grace period appeared to be worded as if it were the final word on
achieving predictibility for registrants, and that it had to be accepted
as-is because it was hard to get even that agreement amongst certain
PEDNR members and that essentailly there was no chance of anything
further.    i hope i've misunderstood that aspect, but if it is indeed
the feeling of those who met to work out the 5-day grace period, then
my comment back is what you quoted above.

> It would
> be great if you could state what those issues are so they could be
> addressed specifically in the discussions here. Right now we are going
> back and forth over days, and I am not sure days are really the issue at
> hand here. Is there an actual problem that a registrar has deleted the
> name on the expiration date and then did not offer RGP, or that the
> registrar has auctioned off or sold a name at expiration date and the
> registrant did not have an ability to renew? If that is the problem that
> this WG sees then lets address that issue and then move on to the next
> one.
i felt that the list of items that Alan sent as an individual member of 
the group summarized the other issues, so was just making some comments 
on aspects of them since we talked about doing work on the mailing list
with the same kind of back-and-forth that we regularly employ on the 
conference calls.
-ron