RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
- To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:03:54 -0500
At 07/12/2009 09:14 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
Please find enclosed a couple of comments on the
URS Section?.Apologize I could not get this
earlier, but I was driving the whole day from Boston to DC.
1) Section 4.2 should be changed to be more
technically accurate from ?Filing an answer
after a Default decision should cause the domain
name to resolve immediately to original website?
to ?Promptly after the filing of an answer after
a Default decision, the nameservers shall be
returned to the state in which it existed
immediately prior to the domain name being
placed on hold.? Same change should be made to
Section 8.1. The reason should be
self-evident. If not, I would be happy to explain.
Better wording than what I have been using (DNS
should point to original IP address(es)).
2) We need to add a section on what happens
in the case of a default. 6.6 talks about what
happens upon an evaluation on the merits, but
there is no section that states that if there is
a Default, then the name goes on
hold. Presumably, that would be before Section 4.2.
I am not sure what "hold" means.
My understanding was that at Default, we were
using basically the rules that the IRT report
used. It said "During the period of default, the
Registrant cannot (a) change the content found on
the site in an attempt to argue the site is used
in connection with legitimate means and thus
regain access to it or (b) change the Whois information.:
a) clearly cannot be physically enforced but I
thought the intent was that such changes would
have no impact on the examination. b) is fine. No
mention was made about "taking down the site" (so
to speak) until a decision was reached for the claimant.
I assume these changes are not controversial.
Jeffrey J. Neuman