Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For Final Review - PEDNR Proposed Final Report

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe on separate planets, but I agree:  on Earth, this is a problem. 

Good catch. 

J.
James M. Bladel
------
Sent via Blackberry
(Please excuse typos and brevity)
Mobile:  +1 319 331 9268

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:05:44 
To: Marika Konings<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>; PEDNR<gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 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"
>>Content-Description: PEDNR Proposed Final Report - clean - Updated 16
>>  February 2011.doc
>>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="PEDNR Proposed Final Report -"
>>  clean - Updated 16 February 2011.doc"; size=562240;
>>         creation-date="Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:40:54 GMT";
>>         modification-date="Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:40:54 GMT"