RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Revised Recommendations

["Michael Young" <myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan this should, I believe, suffice.

Replace

Registrar directs port 80 traffic (Web) to a web server other than the one
used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, 

with

Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing
website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration,


Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: February-16-11 2:30 AM
To: PEDNR
Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Revised Recommendations

I listened to the MP3 and hope that I caught all of the suggested changes.

The document here shows all of the change to the actual recommendations. The
comments and old Status column were removed and a Rationale column added. I
also added a new column for a suggested ordering of the recommendations.
Probably not perfect, but it at least groups the similar ones together and
in a rational order within each grouping.

A few things that I noted while making the changes.

- I don't suggest doing anything about it on this iteration, but after the
comment period, we probably should look at old Rec 7 and 9. 
They seem to overlap and could use some cleanup.

- I realized that in my eagerness to accept James' VERY simplified version
of old Rec 6 (disclosure of renewal price), something important was lost
from the older version. The new version only talks about registrars that
have a web presence for registration/renewal. 
Those registrars who work solely through resellers are thus exempted which
was certainly not my intent, nor, I think, that of the group. I suggested a
new sentence be added putting back in the requirement to disclose renewal
price either in the registration agreement or pointed to it. I did not
include the RGP price but that could easily be added as well (but did not
want to go outside of the intent of the original Rec.). The wording could
probably be enhanced, but this should work for now, if all agree.

- On rewording old Rec 14a (very old 15a) to replace "immediately" 
with "commercially reasonable delay" as per the suggestion (I think from
James), I found the wording rather awkward. I included an alternative
working with the sentence inverted. I think it reads a bit better.

- Still to come is the revised wording from Michael on the port 80
interception.

Please review and let me know if I got anything wrong or otherwise messed up
(now 2:30 am and past the point where I can proof-read my own work).

Alan