RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jeff.  I had assumed the WG would be considerate of all 
registrars, particularly those for whom any change would have a 
disproportionately large impact.

 

Alan, with regard to your summary, the WG’s stated intention was to answer 
these questions:

 

1.       Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their 
expired domain names

 

2.       Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration 
agreements are clear and conspicuous enough

 

3.       Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming 
expirations

 

4.       Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that 
once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., 
hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, 
or other options to be determined);

 

5.       Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP

 

…and then elect at that time whether or not to recommend policy.  If the 
intentions of the WG’s formation were as you document, that’s a different 
situation entirely.

 

From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 6:54 AM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Marika Konings; PEDNR
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation

 

Alan, 

I assume you meant largest registrars below and it is a typo. If that is the 
case why do we not care about the impact to smaller registrars, where these 
changes will most likely have the adverse impact? 

 

Jeff

 

 


On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:27 AM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        Thinking about it more, I think we need a summary prior to the 
recommendations giving the overall direction of the recs. Without trying to 
word-smith it, something like:
        
        The WG's overall intent was to:
        
        - provide additional guarantees to registrants
        - improve registrant education and comprehension
        - have minimal impact of the current business practices of the larges 
registrars serving the majority of registrants
        
        How does this sound?
        
        Alan
        
        At 07/03/2011 10:07 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
        
        

        Thanks Marika, 
        
        Overall it looks great. I do think, however, that we need to be 
prepared to give a more in depth presentation on at least some of the 
recommendations. There will not be time to present these formally during the 
GNSO meeting, but we may well get some questions where a further slide could 
help. And during the public session, I think it almost mandatory that we go 
into some more detail.
        
        If there is general approval for this, I would be happy to pull 
together some further slides and share them with the WG prior to the weekend.
        
        With regard to the presentations, and particularly the public one, I 
think it important that we share the job of presenting the recommendations. So 
I would like some volunteers...
        
        Alan 
        
        At 07/03/2011 03:29 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
        
        

        Dear All,
        
        Please find attached for your review the proposed presentation for the 
different PEDNR meetings in San Francisco. As a reminder, the following 
meetings are currently scheduled: 

        *       Saturday 12 March from 9.30 – 10.00 (local time) – Update to 
the GNSO Council (Tower Salon A) 
        *       Monday 14 March from 16.30 – 18.00 (local time) - Presentation 
& Discussion of Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Draft Final Report (Tower 
Salon A) 

        Feel free to share your comments on the mailing list and/or tomorrow's 
PEDNR WG meeting.
        
        With best regards,
        
        Marika

 

________________________________

Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.