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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika.

I am not familiar with such a term (at least as described here). Can 
you give an example?
Alan

At 10/02/2011 04:05 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> In relation to recommendation #2, in order to provide further 
> specificity to the definition, we would like to put forward the 
> following addition (in cursive) for the WG's consideration:
> Recommendation #2: 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. If prior 
> to expiration, the domain name registration was modified pursuant to 
> a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of 
> registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal, the 
> RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant 
> immediately prior to that modification.
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Marika Konings 
> <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:57:52 -0800
> To: PEDNR <<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
>
> 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 Expiration" (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 Expiration'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