ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg] URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!
  • From: "Dillon, Chris" <c.dillon@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:28:39 +0000

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for your prompt dealing with this matter! Much appreciated. It is to 
be hoped that this will avoid delay,

Please confirm you are happy with Lars' correction below, if you have not 
already done so.


Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL, 
Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599) 

From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:lars.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2015 16:10
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 '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