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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok. See my next note for another try.

At 08/03/2011 01:25 PM, Mason Cole wrote:
> 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.Ã?  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 WGâ??s 
> stated intention was as 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 att that time whether or not to 
> recommmend policy.Ã?  If the intentions of the 
> WGâ??s formation were as youyou document, 
> thatâ??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" 
> <<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) ? Updapdate to the GNSO Council (Tower Saloon 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.