ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Mason Cole <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] For review - proposed presentation
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:49:14 -0500

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.� 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.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy