RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

> I assume these changes are not controversial.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman