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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan – I am just trying to prepare ourselves for the reaction from the 
community and decide whether or not a summary works. As we know many people 
will just read the summary and then we will have reactions like the one I 
mentioned below. My comment has nothing to do with my satisfaction or 
dissatisfaction with the report

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:04:56 -0800
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation

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" 
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.

________________________________
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.