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

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thinking about Rec #5 a bit more, and wondering if including this
language could possibly be -worse- than redundant.

This is a bit abstract, so please bear with me:  but I was concerned
that if we made a point in this (or other) PDPs to explicitly state
something that is already held to be true, then we could introduce
inconsistencies, and inadvertently weaken the "generic" provision that
is already in the RAA.  

Just a thought...

J.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
From: "Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 10, 2011 7:16 pm
To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Marika
Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "Diaz,Paul"
<pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "PEDNR" <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


+2

-----Original Message-----
From: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight [mailto:michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:11 PM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; Diaz,Paul; PEDNR
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations


+1

On 9 Feb 2011, at 23:03, James M. Bladel wrote:

> 
> Alan & Team:
> 
> 
> Reviewing my notes on Rec #5, many of the registrars on this group
> (Jeff, Michele and myself) expressed that it was not appropriate for a
> PDP to issue (what amounts to) an opinion about the RAA, and that it
was
> redundant/unnecessary. 
> 
> Here's my (ever colorful) take at the time:
> 
> James Bladel: Okay. Well I'm going to go ahead and vote with Jeff on
> this one that I think that, you know, if a reseller, you know, sneezes
> and doesn't blow his nose that we're responsible for that. I mean,
> that's just understood in this business that we're responsible for
what
> our resellers do. So I don't think calling that out in specific
> policies... 
> 
> So I am opposed to Rec #5 in any form, current or proposed.
> 
> Thanks--
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, February 09, 2011 4:20 pm
> To: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR
> <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> A few comments...
> 
> At 09/02/2011 04:55 PM, Diaz, Paul wrote:
> In the interest of keeping things interesting, I cannot support the
> addition of "explicit" to Recommendation #4. When did ICANN get into
> the practice of (re)interpreting contract law? I'm not even sure if
my
> company will support Recommendation #4 in general (I've asked my
> counsel for input), but am completely against including verbiage that
> tries to regulate what a registration agreement can or cannot contract
> between two private parties.
> I wasn't attempting to suggest that ICANN regulate what is in the
> registration agreement (any more than it already does in several
cases).
> My reference was that a post expiration change to whois triggered
solely
> by the registrant accepting the "assignment" clause in a registration
> should not alter their ability to renew as intended prior to the end
of
> the 8-day period.
> 
> 
> I also oppose the addition of "Through either Policy or Compliance
> Advisory" to Recommendation #5. An Advisory does NOT carry the weight
> of Consensus Policy. In fact, ICANN has issued ill-conceived
advisories
> in the past, and has either had to back-pedal or simply ignore their
own
> advice. ICANN is supposed to be a bottom-up policymaking
organization:
> I do not want to confer rulemaking authority to the Staff.
> Sorry, I was reacting to (I think James's) comment that this does not
> belong in the RAA coupled with the legal opinion that it was already
an
> assumed fact.
> 
> 
> A nit: we need to be careful about typos, especially misuse of key
> terms like "register," "registrar," and/or "registrant" (see Rec 5
> below).
> Indeed! Hopefully between now and the final report, we will eliminate
> any of those.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> P
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:10 AM
> To: Marika Konings; PEDNR
> Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For your review - Updated recommendations
> 
> Marika, thanks for the quick work. This is good. See notes below.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 09/02/2011 05:57 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> 
> 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) 
> 
> My recollection, and I am not sure if it was on a conference call or a
> private discussion, that Michael had thought that with the unsponsored
> exception, it was ok. I beleive that he had added the second
> "unsponsored" to make the intent clear.
> 
> 
> + 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) 
> 
> I would say "... the entity that WAS eligible..." but otherwise I am
ok
> with this.
> 
> 
> + 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) 
> 
> Much better than the previous wording.
> 
> 
> + 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) 
> 
> I suggest "The Registered Name Holder at Expiration cannot be
prevented
> from renewing a Registered Name after expiration as a result of WHOIS
> changes made by the registrar that where not at the Registered Name
> Holder at Expiration's explicit request."
> 
> That fixes the "Registered Name" terminology, says we are only talking
> about post-expiration renewal, and makes the request "explicit" I do
not
> suggest that we complicate the recommendation itself, but suggest that
> it the comments we clearly say that an agreement included in a
> registration agreement allowing the registrar to reassign, sell or
> auction the RN post expiration does not constitute an "explicit"
> request.
> 
> 
> + 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) 
> 
> I am not sure that this wording addresses the concern that Jeff raised
> about a some terms varying per reseller. In our discussions, we said
> that in such cases, the reseller may be the one that fulfills this
> requirement on behalf of the registrar. Will Legal Counsel accept the
we
> replace the end of the first sentence by "... carried out by a
registrar
> or reseller."? The next sentence then makes more sense.
> 
> Typos: chooses for choses and registrar for register.
> 
> Also, I was thinking about this last night, and wondered what people
> think about prefixing this recommendation with "Through either Policy
or
> Compliance Advisory, reiterate the ..." That makes our recommendation
> more flexible. Perhaps based on comments we can refine this in the
final
> report, but this lays out that we are divided about whether this
belongs
> in the RAA or not.
> 
> 
> + Recommendation #6: James to circulate alternative language for
> consideration. (James Bladel) 
> + Recommendation #7: Review proposed modification. (All) 
> + Recommendation #9: Review proposed modification. (All) 
> 
> I would remove the phrase "and supported by registrars and ALAC" in
> middle of the paragraph. It no longer is needed with ICANN now being
> responsible, and it removes the sole reference to ALAC as opposed to
> others.
> 
> Recommendation 11. I would say "It is the intention to have an
> exception policy allowing Registrar to substitute alternative
> notification patterns, but this still needs to be defined."
> 
> Rec. 12 should be deleted and the rest renumbered. 
> 
> 
> + 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) 
> 
> I prefer two, as this one is simply to long and complex. I submitted
> revised wording for the 2nd one last night limiting its applicability
to
> if the name is still renewable (no point in taunting a registrant if
it
> isn't).
> 
> 
> + Recommendation #16: Berry/Mikey to provide alternative wording for
> consideration. (Berry Cobb / Mike O'Connor) 
> 
> In the text, the deletion made by Michael should be reinstated.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845