Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
Do we still want a recommendation saying that it would be important for registrants/registrars and we advocate it being considered in some forum, (but not ours)? That is basically what the proposed wording was trying to say. Or do we want to simply be silent on it. I personally think that our discussion of this issue that impacts both registrants and registrars adversely should not just be dropped but should be referenced in our recommendations (even though we are not advocating a particular solution now). Alan At 10/02/2011 04:20 PM, berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Yes fine with me. We can push the notion in different circles. Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> Sender: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:16:59 -0600 To: MICHAEL YOUNG<myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Marika Konings<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; PEDNR<gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations hi gang, i think Berry and i were chewing on a bone that mostly falls outside this WG.i'd be fine letting this one drop for now -- it's really more a question for the ongoing process of managing "feature requests, build schedule and feature rollout" in the EPP. we were both quite struck by the notion that there is so much dispersion in the way this is done today. so let's put this one on the "never mind" pile for this go-around.Berry, are you OK with this summary of where we're at, and the notion that we should let it go?mikey On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:21 PM, MICHAEL YOUNG wrote:See comments in line.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) 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 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) !5 a &b increases constraints on Registrars, if they are ok with that then I don?t 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.MichaelThe 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- - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web <http://www.haven2.com>http://www.haven2.com handleOConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
|