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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alan,

As noted in the PEDNR Issue Report 'Many registration agreements provide for 
the right of renewal by the registrar and transfer of ownership to the 
registrar through a subsidiary or affiliate or a third party in case the 
original registrant does not renew the domain name'. This normally entails a 
modification of registration data. As far as I am aware, this currently happens 
at or after expiration. The additional clarification that we would propose to 
add is to ensure that no loophole is created whereby such provisions would be 
changed to apply just prior to expiration which under first sentence of the 
definition would mean that the registrar / subsidiary / affiliate / third party 
would become the RNHaE.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:38:56 -0800
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations

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 <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> 
>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:57:52 -0800
To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 
forconsideration. (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