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

[MICHAEL YOUNG <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:-) Never a dull moment.

On 11-02-09 2:10 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Michael, hopefully through these message, we are soliciting the
>opinions of all WG members. My comments were not meant to be made
>with the Chair's hat, but rather just from a (rather interested) group
>member.
>
>Nothing wrong with disagreement - keeps things interesting.
>
>Alan
>
>At 09/02/2011 01:04 PM, Michael Young wrote:
>>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"
>> >> >
>> >
>