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

[Justine Chew <justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx>]

I consent to the change, ie to the use of "validate".

Thanks,

Justine Chew
-----
On 21 Jun 2015 03:16, "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
> - REPLY NEEDED!
>
>    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
>
>
>
>