Dear Kurt The changes that I proposed are not reflected Pls kindly include them Regards Kavouss On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:40 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
There are several issues with the report that are either incorrect, or I do not know how the decisions were made (and several others also do not know).
- Rec #8 implies (but does not clearly say) that offering Tech Contacts is an option for registrars. In the interim report, we raised the question of whether "optional" for the Tech fields meant optional for the registrant, or optional for the registrar. I cannot recall ever discussing this when we went over the comments, but somehow it is now optional for registrars, requiring registrants to shop around for a registrar that accepts the option - if indeed any registrars will! When was this decided?
- Rec #16 takes geographic differentiation off the table. My recollection is that we put that decision into Phase 2. When was this decision taken?
- Rec #18 does not make sense to me. It says that Temp Spec sections 4.1 and 4.2 are to be replaced "upon expiration". What is the purpose of replacing these sections once the Temp Spec is no longer operative? And how does that affect access? I note that Rec #28 temporarily reinstates the Temp Spec, but the version PRIOR to expiration.
- Rec #29 requires explicit action from registrars before the Admin fields can be eliminated. Either we need to explicitly say that this action must be taken prior to 29 February 2020, or we need to include them in Rec #5 listing all RDDS fields flagging them as being there only until the Rec #29 action is taken.
On a less substantive level:
- We say the Tech name and contact fields are option, but in the various tables, the are not flagged with a trailing (opt.) like the other optional fields are.
- In Rec #8, why are Tech name and contacts transmitted by registries to escrow but not by registrars (as currently required by the RAA)?
- Rec #13 makes a reference to "Recommendation X". I presume this should be Rec #6.
- Rec #21 makes reference to Thick and Thin registries, a concept that we are told no longer exists.
The first issues have a direct bearing on whether the ALAC can support this report and I would appreciate a quick reply.
Alan
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team