[gnso-pednr-dt] Feedback on recommendations

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below some feedback for your consideration from our legal and 
compliance department in relation to the proposed recommendations. Note that 
these comments do not take into account some of the changes proposed by Michael 
in the version that was circulated earlier today.

With best regards,

Marika

=============================

Overall

Concern about the precision of definition of the “registrant at expiration” - 
the inclusion of the term “just prior” could create some imprecision on 
assessing the registrant. More precise wording may be necessary.  (See Rec 2)

Recommendation # 5

As a reminder, the ICANN accredited registrar is the only party ICANN can 
enforce the RAA or policy against and it is up to the registrar to ensure their 
resellers comply with the applicable RAA provisions or ICANN policies. The WG 
could consider rewording the recommendation as follows “All RAA provisions 
applicable to Registrars dealing with registrar-­- registrant interactions must 
be carried out by a registrar. If a registrar choses to use a reseller, the 
register nevertheless remains responsible for its obligations under the RAA.”

Recommendation # 6

ICANN is not able to dictate pricing limitations.  The phrase “The price may 
not vary based on any perceived or measured value beyond the “face” value of 
the Registered Name” should be removed.

It’s not clear what the phrase: “if it varies over time, that variation must be 
included in the above disclosures” means.  Maybe alternate language could 
capture the concept.  One idea: “A registrar retains the right to change the 
fee for post-expiration renewal during the guaranteed renewal period. If that 
fee changes, the disclosures provided to the RAE must document any change in 
fee as provided in a prior disclosure.”

Recommendation # 7

No comment, though the phrase “provision a referral” is somewhat vague.

Recommendation # 8

The WG should take into account that this recommendation would require updating 
all agreements and could cause some confusion during the time that the policy 
is in effect but the text of the agreement as posted has not been amended (e.g. 
this also applied to the EDDP at its original adoption; the language of the 
EDDP was not incorporated into the agreements until the new RAA came into 
force, until that time it existed as a separate consensus policy). Such 
confusion could be minimized by information and educational efforts in relation 
to the policy changes once adopted. It should also be noted that there are 
other potential uses of the phrase out there that are not subject to ICANN 
policy and would not be updated as part of the implementation of this policy, 
such as non-ICANN technical specifications.

Recommendation # 10

Compliance with local laws is an issue for registrars for the entirety of their 
Registration Agreements. As long as the agreement points to where the 
information can be found, instead of including that information in the 
registration agreement itself, this may no longer be an issue.

Recommendation # 11

The phrase: “If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two 
of them must be comparable to the timings specified.” is vague.