ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!

  • To: Sara Bockey <sbockey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:40:28 +0200

Also in favour of making this change. Apologies for my part in the confusion on 



On Jun 20, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Sara Bockey <sbockey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I consent to this change. 
> Thank you, Lars.
> Sara 
> From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 4:10 PM
> To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - 
> Dear all,
> Please all read this careful and try to reply on list as soon as possible. 
> It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used 
> in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report
> The Recommendation reads currently: 
> Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the 
> language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent 
> to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L 
> Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable 
> polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with 
> the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must 
> be easily identifiable.
> Level of consensus: Full Consensus
> The term ‘verified’ in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal 
> implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of 
> the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that 
> particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used 
> instead of “verification”. Both  co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical 
> mistake as the Group meant to use the term ‘validate’ not ‘verifiy’ and it 
> should be changed accordingly.
> With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual 
> meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying 
> the GNSO Council’s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as 
> soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and 
> in time for Wednesday’s Council discussion and vote.
> Many thanks and best wishes, 
> Lars

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy