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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Almost works for me, but I am uneasy calling the 
regular post-expiration a "grace period" unless 
we coin the term in this process.
Alan

At 09/02/2011 06:20 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:

> Proposed language for Rec #6:
>
> "If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it
> should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on
> its website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during
> the Redemption Grace Period, or other post-expiration grace period."
>
> Sound familiar?  This is essentially Section 3.7.5.6 of the EDDP.
>
>
> J.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, February 09, 2011 4:57 am
> To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>    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)
> + Recommendation #2: Review proposed alternative wording: 'Define
> Registered Name Holder at Expirationâ?? (RNHaE) as the entity or
> individual that is eligible to renew the domain name registration
> immediately prior to expiration'. (All)
> + 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)
> + 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 Expirationâ??s
> request'. (All)
> + 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)
> + Recommendation #6: James to circulate alternative language for
> consideration. (James Bladel)
> + Recommendation #7: Review proposed modification. (All)
> + Recommendation #9: Review proposed modification. (All)
> + 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)
> + Recommendation #16: Berry/Mikey to provide alternative wording for
> consideration. (Berry Cobb / Mike O'Connor)
>
> 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