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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Would it be an acceptable compromise if the language as proposed in the
latest draft of the recommendations is included in the notes section
instead of a separate recommendation? In this way it could serve as a
reminder, but is not called out separately as a recommendation that
requires specific action.

Just a suggestion.

Marika

On 11/02/11 14:47, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>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
>>> >
>>> >
>