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"
>