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

["Mason Cole" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No, it’s a good idea Alan.  I was just looking for clarification.  

 

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:10 AM
To: Mason Cole; Jeff Eckhaus
Cc: Marika Konings; PEDNR
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation

 

I suggested something that I thought would summarize the recommendations and 
highlight what we did accomplish.

I withdraw the suggestion.

Alan

At 08/03/2011 12:38 PM, Mason Cole wrote:



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 recommmend 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 
<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) – Updapdate 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.