Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Feedback on recommendations

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Comments below.

Marika, can you forward these comments back to legal/compliance?

Alan

At 07/02/2011 03:50 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
> 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)
Can staff provide a more precise way of defining the term??

> 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.?
I am fine with that.

> 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.?
There are two situations that are of interest.

The first is where a registrar ahead of time 
announced that they will charge (for example) $10 
for renewal during days 1-10 and $100 past day 
10. That is fine and we do not want to do 
anything to hamper this. As long as the registrar documents it ahead of time.
The situation that we are trying to prevent is 
where the registrar determines the renewal price 
on the fly and the registrant has no ability to 
know what it will be ahead of time. Just as the 
current RAA sys that the Registrar must disclose 
the RGP redemption price, we are asking that they 
disclose the pre-delete renewal price.
> Recommendation # 7
>
> No comment, though the phrase ?provision a referral? is somewhat vague.
Already noted in my reply to Michael and I 
suggested we use words that are already in one version of the RAA.
> 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.
As I read it, this is identifying some of the 
complexity and not saying that we should not do it.
> 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.
Since we are now saying it can be either/or, I 
think this comment is saying we are ok.
> 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.
Noted. We need to refine.