RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR Recommendations 16, 17
- To: Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, Berry Cobb <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR Recommendations 16, 17
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:33:41 -0400
Rob, first, I agree that the bottom arrows are not appropriate here.
It is accurate from an RAA point of view, but not
from a registrant's point of view, since it
excludes any reference to the ability of a
registrar to change the owner (through auction,
sale or whatever) during the ARGP.
And yes, it has been used MANY times over the
last years. But that is what makes it easy for
some of those on the WG to quickly know that it
is not the diagram that we would like to see used in this case.
At 28/06/2011 10:56 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Actually, this is the diagram ICANN has used for
the life cycle of a domain at many
conferences. I first introduced it when I spoke
a few years ago on the subject, and ICANN refined it.
It was the same diagram that was used over and
over at discussion and lectures, including the
one Alan invited me to speak at that lead to the
creation of this PENDR working group.
I believe the diagram is accurate, so I am not
sure where people are saying it is wrong.
Personally, I don?t think the bottom arrows that
allude to tasting and drop catching are
appropriate to have on the one that the
registrants rights document links to, but I
believe the actual domain life cycle to be accurate.
[mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Berry Cobb
Subject: Re: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR Recommendations 16, 17
hm. that's a truly terrible diagram and implies
a uniformity across registrars that we all know isn't the case.
so Margie, why don't you ask the ICANN folks to
take that down. it's very misleading.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
I guess you can say Recommendation #16 is complete (to a certain degree).
A footnote to the Registrant Rights &
Responsibilities, just posted by ICANN today, references the gTLD lifecycle.
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/gtld-lifecycle.htm (footnote #1)
I understand that the PEDNR recommendations are
not consensus policy, because the Council has
yet to vote and of course implement. Despite
this, I was under the impression that no Working
Group member was pleased with the accuracy and
representation of this the gTLD lifecycle
diagram. I cannot speak for other members, but
I certainly do not support it. Plus, my worst
fears are being realized by ICANN promoting this
diagram and the conundrum I predicted is
starting to materialize. If I recall correctly
during WG deliberations there was a lack of
support for any specific recommendation that a
process diagram outlining the Expiration process be created.
No doubt if PEDNR recommendations are adopted,
then this diagram becomes invalid. My question
back to the WG, absent any CP on PEDNR
recommendations, is should ICANN & the Community
even advertise this gTLD lifecycle diagram to begin with?
I look forward to hearing responses. Thanks.
As a side note?.. The RtRRof2009RAA makes for
some great bedtime reading. I am not familiar
with the project plan for rolling out this
material, but I hope there is a more exciting
platform for Registrants to digest this
information. Else, we may encounter the same
results with Rt reading of Registrants Agreements, TOCs, etc?
Infinity Portals LLC
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)