Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated Recommendations list

[Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On the issue of putting 17 into 15 I realize it does limit the action to the 8 
day period. I suggested this as a healthy compromise in that it provides good 
consumer protection while constraining disruption to existing business 
practices to that 8 day period. Recommendation 17 is fairly useless without 
balancing it against 15. For example, what's the point of directing to a 
informational website on renewing processes, on day 20 of the autorenew grace 
period , if the 8 day period was completed earlier and the name no longer is 
renewable by the RAE? This combination I think works better and is good middle 
ground.

However that's just my two cents, it's really up to all of you.

Michael Young
Afilias
D:416-673-4109
M:647-289-1220 

On 2011-02-07, at 17:40, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for this Michael.  A few comments.
> 
> Rec. 6 - Renewal Price Disclosure:  I think that this change captures the 
> intent (and I do note that the legal opinion we just got did object to the 
> old wording). If I read it correctly, it says that whatever rules are in 
> force at Expiration time remain in force until it is renewed (by someone!) or 
> deleted. It does not forbid the current practice of some registrars to have 
> one price for days 1-n, and a different (higher) price starting at day n+1. 
> Correct?
> 
> Rec. 7: - Educational Materials:  "provision a referral" is not clear. I 
> suggest we use the comparable wording from the new RAA section 3.15 which 
> reads "In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that 
> ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and 
> responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in 
> consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage 
> on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly 
> displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to 
> policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus 
> Policies."
> 
> Rec. 10 - Notice details: The change makes it an either/or which was not 
> intended. I think that the term "full destination details" does cover the 
> intent (ie, if the Registrar uses the (for instance) Whois Technical Contact 
> for notices, say that. I would suggest that we use the original wording for 
> now, and try to refine it in the final report.
> 
> Rec. 15 - The 8-day rule: No problem with the change about restarting the 
> domain on renewal. The incorporation of the Rec 17 has a problem. I don't 
> mind if it is put in here, although I think that it confuses the 
> recommendation a bit. However, the problem is that the original Rec 17 
> applied to any redirection and not just during the 8 days.
> 
> I see that we have a problem in that there are two Rec 15.  Call the 2nd one 
> 15-2 for now.
> 
> Rec 15-2 - Whois: The WG was well aware that the current protocols did not 
> support this change. The intent was to exercise the E in EPP (Extensible). 
> The possible complexity, effort and time required to do this is what caused 
> us to defer.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> At 07/02/2011 12:16 PM, Michael Young wrote:
>> Please see edits and changes,
>> 
>> I've wrapped the elements of recommendation 17 into 15.  I've adjusted some
>> language for clarity here and there.  I also made a modification to the
>> Whois output recommendation that reflects an operational limitation to EPP
>> implementations.
>> 
>> 
>> Michael Young
>> 
>> M:+1-647-289-1220
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: February-04-11 7:39 PM
>> To: Michael Young
>> Cc: PEDNR
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated Recommendations list
>> 
>> Look forward to seeing them.  I don't think there was anything added that
>> has not been extensively discussed before, although not all had reached full
>> consensus of those on the particular calls.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> At 04/02/2011 07:09 PM, Michael Young wrote:
>> >I have to say are some additions here I am surprised by, I will provide
>> >suggested edits and at least one unexpected recommendation I believe
>> >needs to be dropped.
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Michael Young
>> >Afilias
>> >D:416-673-4109
>> >M:647-289-1220
>> >
>> >On 2011-02-04, at 13:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The attached document includes the update that Marika made based
>> > on our 02 Feb 2011 teleconference, a few changes/additions that I
>> > made, and what I think are the last three Recommendations from the
>> > proposals that we have been discussing.
>> > >
>> > > I will do another review of the last teleconference and the
>> > proposal list by sometime tomorrow to see if there is anything else
>> > that is outstanding.
>> > >
>> > > Please review and send comments to the list.
>> > >
>> > > Alan
>> > > <PEDNR Recommendations - updated 4 February 2011.doc>
>> 
>> 
>> Content-Type: application/msword;
>>        name="PEDNR Recommendations - updated 4 February 
>> 2011_Michael's_edits.doc"
>> Content-Description: PEDNR Recommendations - updated 4 February
>> 2011_Michael's_edits.doc
>> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="PEDNR Recommendations - updated 4"
>> February 2011_Michael's_edits.doc"; size=92224;
>>        creation-date="Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:16:27 GMT";
>>        modification-date="Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:16:27 GMT"
>