Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report posted

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

No, that's fine. Thanks Alan.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 14:55:15 
To: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx<gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report 
  posted



>But the way it is wording right requires that if 
>more than two a similar timing must be followed 
>implying a similar span of time between the 
>additional meassges. That is confusing.

I guess I don't see how "If more that two alert 
notifications are sent, the timing of two of them 
must be comparable to the timings specified." 
says that. It just says that two of them must 
comply - nothing about the others.

In any case, the intent of the recommendation I 
hope is clear. The final words that go into the 
formal Consensus Policy will need to be drafted 
to ensure that the confusion that you see is 
fixed. We are suggesting that members of the WG 
who wish to do so be part of an implementation 
team to make sure that the final policy implementation meets the intent.

Do you feel that there is really a need to 
re-open the report and change the wording here?

Alan

At 13/06/2011 02:26 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>The requirement for two includes a timing requirement, with some
>flexibility. If you want to be sure it is understood that more than two
>can be sent, then jut say that. But the way it is wording right requires
>that if more than two a similar timing must be followed implying a
>similar span of time between the additional meassges. That is confusing.
>
>You have the requirement for two with timing. The second sentence to
>that could simply say "This requirement is not meant to restrict
>registrars from sending more than two notices if it so chooses." Or
>something like that. It doesn't change the timing requirement on the
>two.
>
>
>Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report
> > posted
> > From: Alan Greenberg
> > Date: Mon, June 13, 2011 1:10 pm
> > To: Tim Ruiz , "marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx"
> >
> > Cc: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
> >
> > The "If more than two..." sentence adds a few things:
> >
> > - it makes it clear that were are not restricting
> > registrars to just two messages;
> > - the "comparable" might give just a bit of
> > wriggle-room on the timing if there are multiple
> > messages sent. Although it would be up to
> > compliance to judge, perhaps a message at day 11
> > and another at day 3 would be deemed "comparable" to one at day 7±3.
> >
> > Originally there was an exception policy proposed
> > which would allow registrars to substitute other
> > timing that would still meet the "give the
> > registrant fair notice" requirement but would fit
> > other business models, but the registrars on the
> > WG (supported by others) felt that it was not
> > necessary and would unnecessarily make things
> > more complex and possibly confusing to registrants.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > At 13/06/2011 01:43 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> > >One other question/suggestion, sorry to bring it up so late but it
> > >didn't strike me until now, perhaps due to changes.
> > >
> > >Rec. 7 requires two notices to be sure some notice is given at
> > >reasonable times. Fine, but why the need to require similar timing if
> > >more than two are sent? It seems unnecessary and possibly even too
> > >restrictive. There are more types of registrants and business models
> > >than we can shake a stick at. It just may be that some other timing or
> > >frequency makes sense and gets better results. So require the two as
> > >stated, but drop the "if more than two" requirement. It isn't really
> > >necessary, IMHO.
> > >
> > >
> > >Tim
> > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Updated version of PEDNR Final Report posted
> > > > From: Marika Konings
> > > > Date: Mon, June 13, 2011 6:00 am
> > > > To: "gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx"
> > > >
> > > > Dear All,
> > > >
> > > > Please find attached an updated version of
> > > the PEDNR Final Report posted on the wiki
> > > 
> (https://community.icann.org/display/gnsopednr/2.+WG+Documents+%28Drafts+-+Published%29)
>  
>
> > > that incorporates the edits suggested by Alan
> > > (see
> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/msg00839.html)
> > > as well as the attendance information. If no
> > > further minor edits / typos are submitted
> > > today, this version will be submitted to 
> the GNSO Council tomorrow, 14 June.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Marika
> > > >
> > > >