Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For Final Review - PEDNR Proposed Final Report
I know the deadline is past, but I just realized that in Rec #2, "concurrent" should really be "consecutive". Not sure how you can have 8 concurrent days (all happening at the same time)! ;-) Alan At 19/02/2011 12:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: Line numbers for the clean version. Line 71: Extra period. Line 86: Delete ".pro and". I verified that they do offer the RGP.Line 141: Unless you fee otherwise, I would remove the word actively. Even without that word, the statement is generous.Line 161: Unless you think that we can still do a quick e-mail poll and include the results, how about adding at the end "Prior to the issuance of this Proposed Final Report, only one Working Group member registered disagreement with the recommendations as drafted."Line 162: Perhaps add a title = Charter Questions and Recommendations Lines 176-186 (Rec #2): Several things here:- All occurrences or RAE and Registered Name Holder at Expiration should be changed to RNHaE unless you want to keep the full version for the first occurrence in each Rec. - The expression "the original DNS resolution path of the RAE" was understood by us, but does not really make sense since RNHs do not have resolution paths leading to them. If you want to fix it (your call), I would suggest "the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE".- Regardless of the above change, there are too many commas in that sentence.- Since there have been no complaints, I would suggest replacing the second sentence with the alternative version.Lines 197-201 (Rec #3): Two occurrences of Registered Name Holder at Expiration spelled out in full.Lines 227-228 (Rec #6): Since it was highlighted in my e-mail and there has been no disagreement, I would suggest incorporating this sentence at the start of the Rec.Line 245 (Rec #7): Too late to make the change without WG agreement now, but I would suggest that in the final version, we change "registrants" to "registrants and Registrars", since that was discussed a lot earlier in the deliberations.Line 267 (Rec #9): "or provide full destination details of" should be deleted. It was added by Michael Young in a revision on Feb 7 along with deleting the sentence "What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable." We later decided to go with the original sentence, but neglected to remove the phrase.Line 287 (Rec #11): The wording is a bit unclear. I would suggest changing "explicit action" to "explicit registrant action".Line 294-295 (Rec #12): Too late to fix it now, but we should make a note to revisit this one and make it clear that the requirement is only if the domain has not yet been renewed (or perhaps no renewal is already in process).Line 300: I would insert a pointer to Rec #2 here.Line 311 (Rec #14): I would change "Best Practice" to "Best Practice for Registrars" to make it clearer.Line 319 (Rec #15): "fee" should be "feel".Line 321: The "Strong recommendation" to modify WHOIS, [15 (old #16)] on my last list of recommendations, is missing and probably belongs here.Lines 336-344: Sections 2 is pretty sparse. It also is awkward in that it follows 1.5 which largely says the same thing. It is partly replicated at the end of section 10. Shouldn't that part be enlarged and the current section 2 deleted?General on Recommendations: It seems that the list of the Recs in the Exec Summary duplicated exactly in section 10. If we had more time, I would suggest that the Exec Summary just include a brief summary of the Recs and not the full text. But probably no time to do that (at least, not to do it well). So I would just suggest that near the start of section 10, we have a sentence saying that these Rec were also presented in full in the Exec Summary. That way people who read the first version will not spend time looking to see what is different. If you *want* to condense the Exec Summary, I can give it a try on the weekend, but I really think it is too late now.Line 482: "someone other than the registrar, reseller or registrar" - delete the first "registrar"???Line 514: Delete all? Line 537: "to" instead of "t".Footnote 8 after line 1459: Shouldn't the number here be 412, sine it is identifying the question where we did not use 361?That's about it! Alan At 16/02/2011 09:37 AM, Marika Konings wrote:Dear All,Please find attached for your review an updated version of the PEDNR Proposed Final Report. * This version of the report incorporates the edits suggested by James, Paul and Alan and removes the background section from the Annex as discussed during yesterday's call. * I've incorporated the recommendations circulated by Alan earlier today, noting that further changes may still be made and will be updated accordingly in the report, but I thought it would be useful to already insert them in the document to provide a complete picture. * As discussed, I've organized the recommendations in such a way that they follow the appropriate charter questions, which has resulted in another renumbering compared to the suggested renumbering by Alan (if you feel that certain recommendations are not listed under the appropriate charter question, please let me know) * Also, in relation to recommendation #15, as listed in Alan's document, as it appears from the rationale that the WG is no longer making a recommendation in relation to this issue, I've incorporated the rationale in the WG deliberation section under the relevant charter question and not included the recommendation language itself. * I've made some small edits, mainly for readability to the proposed rationale for each recommendations as proposed by Alan * I've also attached a clean version of the report for those that prefer to review without all the redlines. * We are still cleaning up the attendance sheet which will be linked in the report and will add any missing data in relation to attendance before the report is finalized. Please submit any comments, suggestions and/or edits to the mailing list as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 18 February (COB ? anywhere).Thanks, Marika Content-Type: application/x-msword;name="PEDNR Proposed Final Report - clean - Updated 16 February 2011.doc"
|