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

[Michael Young <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Then we disagree Alan on the effect of recommendation 17.

In the case where a registrar voluntarily  supports renewal for 30-40 days 
after expiration for the RAE, recommendation 17 and 15 are both largely moot ( 
excepting the requirement to disrupt DNS). Keeping the behaviour of 17 separate 
from 15 is still confusing, again why restrict the activity of the registrar 
who has completed the requirements of 15? I understand the goal of 17 when 15 
didn't exist but I think we should put the choice up to the entire group,.....

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

On 2011-02-08, at 12:33, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Two comments. I would think it is easier (and less disruptive to business 
> practices) to have one page and not change it along the way. Second. perhaps 
> I am naive, but I do not expect a registrar who currently gives 30 or 40 days 
> for renewal to lower this once the policy is in place. So it is not useles...
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 08/02/2011 11:49 AM, Michael Young wrote:
>> 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"
>> >
>