RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Revised Recommendations

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

I agree with you 100%. And that is what the proposed recommendation 
"14a (old #15a)" says. Specifically, it says that the registrar must, 
at a certain point, the original DNS resolution must be disrupted. 
All of the methods that you identify meet this requirement.
The recommendation regarding web access is prefixed by "If at any 
time after expiration....". If a registrar does not choose to do such 
redirection (which most already do, but there is no requirement to), 
then this provision would kick in.
Alan

At 16/02/2011 10:45 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
> I don't think that does work.  Neither does actually.
>
> We have to keep in mind that the only thing the Registrar actually 
> can change on the domain is the DNS servers.   While the Registrar 
> may choose to put their own DNS servers there, and then direct the 
> website as they see fit, they should not be required to.
> It should be perfectly acceptable for the Registrar to change the 
> DNS server to nothing.  Or to simply put the domain on hold, which 
> has the effect of removing the DNS servers from the zone.
> A Registrar should not have to change the DNS server to something 
> that actually resolves to a website.  This places a burden on the 
> Registrar that does not currently exist.  There is no requirement in 
> any contract for the Registrar to operate DNS servers, nor web 
> servers, to point client domains at.
> I understand the intent, but I don't believe you have captured 
> anything workable here.
> Might I suggest that it simply be
>
> "Registrar causes the DNS servers in the zone to be changed."
>
> This would capture both putting the domain on hold which would cause 
> the DNS servers to be removed, as well as a Registrar changing them 
> to a new set.  In either case, the original website would not resolve.
> Rob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Young
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:27 AM
> To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'PEDNR'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Revised Recommendations
>
>
> 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