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

[MICHAEL YOUNG <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See comments in line.

From:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Wed, 9 Feb 2011 02:57:52 -0800
To:  PEDNR <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)
No negative feedback on this one, will explicitly ask the RySG this
Wednesday at the call.

* Recommendation #2: Review proposed alternative wording: 'Define Registered
Name Holder at Expiration² (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 Expiration¹s 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)
!5 a &b increases constraints on Registrars, if they are ok with that then I
don¹t see a problem from the Registry side.  However if they do object, I
think 15 is effective.

* 
* Recommendation #16: Berry/Mikey to provide alternative wording for
consideration. (Berry Cobb / Mike O'Connor)
Berry, Mike, please be aware, today's registration system (EPP based) only
supports one method of exiting the autorenew grace period ahead of its
natural expiration. That method is to delete the domain.  There is no
explicit registry command to "confirm an auto-renewal", and introducing one
would cause the expiration process to have to be re-examined all over again
for loopholes. What you see in WHOIS is simply drawn from what happens first
in the Registry.  So if we were to add an explicit auto-renew confirmed
command, it would affect no less than three grace periods (autorenew, renew,
and RGP) billing mechanisms and EPP statuses for all Registries and
Registrars. 

The only straight-forward approach is to display fully when a name is in
Autorenew Grace Period in Whois.  Anything else becomes a very large
undertaking.

Michael


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