Scott, et al. reading the referenced documents i have a hard time finding what the actual arguments were for the 2 step process.
would it also not have been possible to do a single restore operation that contains the report? the registrar, at the time of restore request, already knows the previous registration data and the current registration data ( registrant) and this is not something ICANN ORG mandates of course, its a result of the community process. so updating RGP should also be driven by ICANN community. - Maarten > Op 4 nov 2025, om 07:10 heeft Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> > het volgende geschreven: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gould, James <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:35 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: [rpp] RGP (RFC3915) Restore report why? >> >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click >> links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> >> Jim, >> >> Where in Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process >> does it refer to a two-step restore process? The only reference that we >> found >> was from a meeting on July 7, 2002, with ICANN Redemption Grace Periods for >> Deleted Names Proposal and not embedded in a consensus policy. > > [SAH] Here: > > https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm > > and here: > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030323.DeletesTF-final-report.html > > Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
