Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marika, thanks for the quick work. This is good. See notes below.

Alan

At 09/02/2011 05:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find attached an updated version of the recommendations 
> document in which I've attempted to capture yesterday's discussion 
> and suggestions. You are strongly encouraged to review this document 
> and provide your feedback on the mailing list as soon as possible. 
> As a reminder, these are the main action items:
>    * Recommendation #1: Michael to confirm whether language is 
> specific enough to ensure exception for sponsored gTLD registries. 
> (Michael Young)
My recollection, and I am not sure if it was on a conference call or 
a private discussion, that Michael had thought that with the 
unsponsored exception, it was ok. I beleive that he had added the 
second "unsponsored" to make the intent clear.
>    * Recommendation #2: Review proposed alternative wording: 
> 'Define Registered Name Holder at Expiration" (RNHaE) as the entity 
> or individual that is eligible to renew the domain name 
> registration immediately prior to expiration'. (All)
I would say "... the entity that WAS eligible..." but otherwise I am 
ok with this.
>    * Recommendation #3: Review proposed alternative wording:  'If a 
> registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the 
> Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to 
> redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP'. (All)
Much better than the previous wording.

>    * Recommendation #4: Review proposed alternative wording: 'The 
> Registered Name Holder at Expiration cannot be prevented from 
> renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes 
> made by the registrar that where not at the Registered Name Holder 
> at Expiration's request'. (All)
I suggest "The Registered Name Holder at Expiration cannot be 
prevented from renewing a Registered Name after expiration as a 
result of WHOIS changes made by the registrar that where not at the 
Registered Name Holder at Expiration's explicit request."
That fixes the "Registered Name" terminology, says we are only 
talking about post-expiration renewal, and makes the request 
"explicit" I do not suggest that we complicate the recommendation 
itself, but suggest that it the comments we clearly say that an 
agreement included in a registration agreement allowing the registrar 
to reassign, sell or auction the RN post expiration does not 
constitute an "explicit" request.
>    * Recommendation #5: Review proposed alternative wording: '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 obligationsunder the RAA. (All)
I am not sure that this wording addresses the concern that Jeff 
raised about a some terms varying per reseller. In our discussions, 
we said that in such cases, the reseller may be the one that fulfills 
this requirement on behalf of the registrar. Will Legal Counsel 
accept the we replace the end of the first sentence by "... carried 
out by a registrar or reseller."? The next sentence then makes more sense.
Typos: chooses for choses and registrar for register.

Also, I was thinking about this last night, and wondered what people 
think about prefixing this recommendation with "Through either Policy 
or Compliance Advisory, reiterate the ..."  That makes our 
recommendation more flexible. Perhaps based on comments we can refine 
this in the final report, but this lays out that we are divided about 
whether this belongs in the RAA or not.
>    * Recommendation #6: James to circulate alternative language for 
> consideration. (James Bladel)
>    * Recommendation #7: Review proposed modification. (All)
>    * Recommendation #9: Review proposed modification. (All)
I would remove the phrase "and supported by registrars and ALAC" in 
middle of the paragraph. It no longer is needed with ICANN now being 
responsible, and it removes the sole reference to ALAC as opposed to others.
Recommendation 11. I would say "It is the intention to have an 
exception policy allowing Registrar to substitute alternative 
notification patterns, but this still needs to be defined."
Rec. 12 should be deleted and the rest renumbered.

>    * Recommendation #15, 15a and 15b:  WG members are requested to 
> review these recommendations and provide feedback on whether the 
> integrated version is preferred (15) or two separate 
> recommendations (15 a & b). (All)
I prefer two, as this one is simply to long and complex. I submitted 
revised wording for the 2nd one last night limiting its applicability 
to if the name is still renewable (no point in taunting a registrant 
if it isn't).
>    * Recommendation #16: Berry/Mikey to provide alternative wording 
> for consideration. (Berry Cobb / Mike O'Connor)
In the text, the deletion made by Michael should be reinstated.


> The objective is to finalize this language as soon as possible for 
> inclusion in the proposed Final Report. As discussed yesterday 
> during the call, we are trying to get the language as 'perfect' as 
> possible, but there will still be an opportunity to fine-tune 
> wording following the review of public comments and prior to 
> finalization of the report.
> With best regards,
>
> Marika