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"
>> >
>