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

["Michael Young" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan, and others, large or small registrars are both inappropriate terms
regardless, since these changes can affect resellers, registries, and even
registrants.  Therefore the term needs to be broader.

 

I suggest the following modifications to Alan's original sum up.

 

The PEDNR working group was trying to actively balance the following
considerations in pursuing its approved scope of work:

 

- provide additional guarantees to registrants
- improve registrant education and comprehension
- minimize impact of the current business practices on affected
stakeholders.

 

We could then list the actual work items that were approved for the WG

 

After that list then comes the recommendations and so forth,...

 

This, I think, would flow comprehensively in an exec summary.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael Young

M:+1-647-289-1220

 

 

From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: March-08-11 1:33 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Marika Konings; PEDNR
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation

 

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>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:04:56 -0800
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, PEDNR
<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 >
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.