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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, "largest".

I am sure we do care about the impact on the 
smaller registrars. Just as some of us care that 
we aren't providing a guaranteed 30 days. I 
didn't think that this presentation is the right 
place to be airing our dissatisfaction with parts 
of the outcome, but rather to be highlighting what we did accomplish.
Alan

At 08/03/2011 09:53 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 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" 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>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 (l (Tower Salon A)
> > > >    * Monday 14 March from 16.30 ? 118.00 
> > > > (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.