RE: [gnso-raa-dt] RESEND: RAA versions and possible discrepancies

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Steve. That was the only section where I had noticed the 
difference, so that probably explains it.
I guess the redline was just showing the changes that were being 
negotiated at that time, and the 3.7.5.x items were added as part of 
tidying up.
Alan

At 03/08/2009 03:45 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> Alan, re 3.7.5 in particular, see
> http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/eddp.htm, in which these provisions
> were added to the RAA in 2004 as part of adoption of the Expired Domains
> Deletion Policy.   This does not explain why they do not appear in the
> redline but does explain how they got into the agreement.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: gnso-raa-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-raa-dt] RESEND: RAA versions and possible discrepancies
>
>
> Sorry if this posts twice - first version seems to have been lost.  Alan
> ------------------
>
> Two comments.
>
> First, Margie's document would be more useful if it indicated which
> rights/obligations were due to the amended RAA, and which were for
> the older agreement.
>
> Second, in reviewing Margie's document, I cam upon terms that I was
> unfamiliar with. Perhaps I have missed some substantive change, but
> in comparing the RAA now in force
> (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) with
> the last redline version I can find
> (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/redline-2001-raa-25nov08.pdf), I
> find they do not match. For instance, section 3.7.5 has several
> subsections added that I cannot see in the redline version. What am I
> missing????
>
> Alan