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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I sent my latest version out before seeing this.

I support the intent. We are talking about a 
PowerPoint presentation here, so I think we need 
to be a bit more terse in what is on the screen.
See you on the call in 30 minutes.

Alan

At 08/03/2011 01:49 PM, Michael Young wrote:
> 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 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:04:56 -0800
> To: Jeffrey Eckhaus <<mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings 
> <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> PEDNR <<mailto:gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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" 
> <<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.
>
> ----------
> 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.