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

[Peter Dernbach <pdernbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I consent to the change as well.

Peter


 <http://www.winklerpartners.com/>

  Peter J.Dernbach
譚璧德


Partner
合夥律師(外國法事務律師)
   *T* 886 (0)2 2311 2345 # 222
*F* 886 (0)2 2311 2688   www.winklerpartners.com
pdernbach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------

NOTICE: This email and any attachments contain private, confidential and
privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or distribute
the contents and are requested to delete them and to notify the sender.

本電子郵件及其附件含有私有、機密、依法受特別保護之資料，僅供意定之收件人使用。若您並非所意定之收件人，即不得予以使用、重製或散布，並請刪除其內容，並通知寄件人。

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Justine Chew <justine.chew@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Lars,
>
> I consent to the change, ie to the use of "validate".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justine Chew
> -----
> On 21 Jun 2015 03:12, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx> 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,
>>
>> Lars
>>
>>
>>
>>
>