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: James Galvin <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:35:52 -0300

I was there during the presentation to the GNSO Council when this was discovered.

I believe this was an editorial misstep on the part of the working group and that there was no intention to suggest such a material change to obligations that are beyond the remit of this working group.

I support the change as proposed below.


On 6/20/15 4:10 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:
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,


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy