RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Your feedback requested - outstanding items from last week's call

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nice clean wording.  Thanks.  Alan

At 01/02/2011 12:03 PM, Michael Young wrote:

> Michele I don`t want anyone to think this was an idea I was advocating, the
> things I put forward are strictly in the hope of finding common ground so we
> can wrap this never ending working group.
>
> In that spirit, lets simplify the language on Recommendation 3 to:
>
> Recommendation #3 - Following expiration, during Autorenew Grace Period, if
> a Registrar Deletes a Registered Name and that Registered Name enters the
> RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to
> redeem the Registered Name.
>
> I am supposing any Registrar that deletes a domain during Autorenew Grace
> Period has not further interest in the domain and would not object to the
> RAE recovering it at that point.
>
>
>
> Michael Young
>
> M:+1-647-289-1220
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: February-01-11 4:19 AM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: PEDNR
> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Your feedback requested - outstanding items
> from last week's call
>
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2011, at 09:03, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > In order to facilitate discussion and input prior to our meeting, also for
> those not being able to join today's call, please find below the main
> outstanding items based on last week's meeting:
>
>
> Thanks for this Marika. It's also helpful to try and discuss more of this on
> the various mailing lists rather than waiting for a meeting ..
>
>
> >       . Recommendation #1 - All unsponsored gTLD Registries shall offer
> the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing gTLDs that do not
> currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs
> must offer the RGP.
> >> For discussion:  Should there be an exemption for TLDs that do not sell
> domains at all (what has been referred to in the VI WG as SRSU)?
>
> I would say yes or no. It doesn't actually matter if they do or they don't,
> as they're all being registered and used by the same entity .. so it's
> probably just easier to give them the exemption ..
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
>
> >       . Recommendation #2 - Define Registered Name Holder at Expiration"
> (RNHaE) as the Registered Name Holder of record just prior to the Expiration
> of the Registered Name.
> >> Comments: The language needs to be precise regarding which registrant
> >> is being referred to. Presumably the one that is in WHOIS prior to
> >> Expiration. (Any suggestions for further improvement?)
> >       . Recommendation #3 - Following expiration, during Autorenew Grace
> Period, if a Registrar Deletes a Registered Name and that Registered Name
> enters the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at
> Expiration to redeem the Registered Name. This is regardless of any changes
> made to Whois data or other records between expiration of the domain and
> entering RGP.  This is excepted where the Registrant has explicitly agreed
> to a reassignment of the domain, in a separate unilateral action at the time
> of reassignment, name to another Registered Name Holder.
> >> Comments: Michael Young to provide further information. The WG also
> >> discussed that the recommendation should specify what the
> >> authoritative source for the information on the Registered Name
> >> Holder at expiration should be e.g. as shown in WHOIS. (WG members
> >> encouraged to provide alternative language for consideration)
>
>
> If Michael could explain his reasoning it would be helpful. I *think* I know
> what he's trying to say, but the current wording opens up several nasty cans
> of worms
>
> >       . Recommendation #6 - The price charged for post-expiration renewal
> during the [guaranteed renewal period] must be explicitly stated in the
> current registration agreement or on the Registrar's web site (if any). This
> price must also be provided to the Registered Name Holder at expiration at
> the time of registration and when pre-and post-expiration renewal notices
> are provided.
> >> There is no requirement that the price remains constant during the entire
> post-expiration period, but if it varies over time, that variation must be
> included in the above disclosures. The price may notvary based on any
> perceived or measured value beyond the "face" value of the Registered Name.
> >>
> >> Comment: Some suggested that the recommendation should capture better
> >> that the focus is on disclosure and not limiting pricing. (WG members
> >> encouraged to provide alternative language for consideration)
>
> I'm in favour of disclosure of pricing, but I wonder does it actually help
> anyone? In the Irish market, for example, there is only one ICANN accredited
> registrar (us). We are the only company selling domain names and other
> services that is bound by the RAA and consensus policies that ICANN (or
> anyone else) has any easy visibility of. While the other companies that
> offer domain names in the Irish market are obviously bound by the RAA via
> the registrar they choose to use there is no easy way for anyone to monitor
> their compliance with this sort of thing.
> So I would wonder if this kind of thing means that effectively a compliant
> registrar is being made to disclose more information than a reseller .. or a
> reseller of a reseller of a reseller
>
> >       . Recommendation #10 - The registration agreement and registrar web
> site (if one is used) must clearlyindicate what methods will be used to
> deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications.
> >> Comments: Some expressed concern that this recommendation could be
> interpreted in an overly narrow sense i.e. bind the registrar to the methods
> specified at the time of registration, but it was pointed out that the
> registrar could modify its methods at any time as long as the registrant
> would be notified of such changes. Wording to reflect this requested.
>
> I have issues with this and I'm one of the people this refers to :)
>
> We're talking about binding terms, contracts and agreements.
>
> Under Irish and EU law it is problematic to change the terms of a contract
> while the contract is active (sorry - not a lawyer, so that's worded badly).
> Basically if I enter into a contract with someone on January 1st I cannot
> simply change the terms of the contract on January 3rd (or later). If a
> supplier / provider / $whatever changed the terms of a contract without
> getting the user to agree to the changes / accept them it can be
> problematic. I don't think it's illegal, but even if it weren't a potential
> legal issue it's definitely a customer service issue.
> I would, therefore, be more inclined to use more open language, as it's not
> as simple as "changing" stuff later as some people seem to contend
>
> Regards
>
> Michele
>
> >
> > Please feel free to share your comments, suggestions and/or proposed edits
> with the mailing list.
> >
> > With best regards,
> >
> > Marika
>
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
> ICANN Accredited Registrar
> http://www.blacknight.com/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://blacknight.mobi/
> http://mneylon.tel
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> US: 213-233-1612
> UK: 0844 484 9361
> Locall: 1850 929 929
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>
> PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting:
> http://domainoffers.me/
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845