ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Rudi Vansnick" <rudi.vansnick@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 17:58:56 -0300

I also agree.


From: Rudi Vansnick 
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 4:50 PM
To: gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
Cc: Lars Hoffmann 
Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - 

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 

  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