RE: [gnso-sti] NCSG edits
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. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman