ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:50:53 -0300

I’m also in favor to make the change, so the text is in line with the RAA.
May I call on all of you, members of this WG to reply asap (and within the next 
24 hours) so we can proceed with the administration of the motion process and 
get the report voted.

Rudi Vansnick

> Op 20-jun.-2015, om 16:10 heeft Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy