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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i'm inclined to lean with James' point on this one.

if the RAA already covers it, leave it be.  if the RAA *doesn't* cover it, 
that's a different kettle of fish.

mikey


On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> James, I believe that the language that was introduced in the new RAA about 
> specific reseller obligations did just that. We have had registrars claim the 
> since the RAA identified those obligations, others are not applicable. That 
> is why the more inclusive language was suggested.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 11/02/2011 12:46 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
>> 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
>> >
>> >