RE: [gnso-pednr-dt] PEDNR Recommendations 16, 17

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

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.
> Rob.
>
> From: owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: Berry Cobb
> Cc: gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> 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.
> mikey
>
>
> 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/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.htm
> 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?
>
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> <mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://infinityportals.com
> 720.839.5735
>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone    651-647-6109
> fax                          866-280-2356
> web        <http://www.haven2.com>http://www.haven2.com
> handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like 
> Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)