<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Your feedback requested - outstanding items from last week's call
- To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Your feedback requested - outstanding items from last week's call
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:46:32 -0500
At 01/02/2011 04:18 AM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
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?
No, I think you have it right. If they offer it,
it will never be used, but it does add some level
of work for them to be prepared for the never-to-happen case I guess.
On the other hand, if we have an exception, we
will need to craft words to describe it, and get
painfully near the failed discussions in the VI group.
My inclination is to not have an exception at
this time, and if a strong case is made during
the comment period, then we act on it then.
> ? 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
I hope not! If all of the obligations incumbent
on a registrar are also incumbent on their
resellers (and nested), then there should be no difference.
> ? 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
How about if the wording allows the agreement to
simply point to the web site for the current
values. That is what most do for prices as well
(and the current RGP price posting requirement).
Then the agreement does not need to change and
the onus is on the registrant to check the
current value (not that it is likely to change all that often).
Alan
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|