ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: Wanawit Ahkuputra <wanawit@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:06:52 +0000

Dear Lars,

I consent the change on Recommendation #4.

Wanawit Ahkuputra
Deputy Executive Director
Electronic Transactions Development Agency (Public Organization)

Mob.: +668 9301 8818
Email: wanawit@xxxxxxxxxx

From:  <owner-gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Lars Hoffmann
Date:  Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 16:10
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 Œverified¹ 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 ³verification². Both  co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical
mistake as the Group meant to use the term Œvalidate¹ not Œverifiy¹ 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 Council¹s 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 Wednesday¹s Council discussion and vote.
Many thanks and best wishes,


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy