RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Revised Recommendations

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Michael.

Alan

At 16/02/2011 10:27 AM, Michael Young wrote:
> 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