RE: [gnso-dow123] Brief summary of Whois TF meeting, 25 June 2006

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mme Georges' presentation was introduced as preceding the formal task force 
meeting, not as part of it.  (Not sure if it makes a big difference.)  See also 
proposed new second sentence of that paragraph below.  
 
Can someone remind me what was the specific language agreed to on bulk access?  
  
 
Steve Metalitz

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx on behalf of Maria Farrell
Sent: Tue 6/27/2006 1:52 PM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Brief summary of Whois TF meeting, 25 June 2006


Dear all,
 
Ahead of comprehensive minutes, below is a very brief summary of the 
substantive Whois meeting held on Saturday, 25 June, 2006. This meeting was a 
substantive meeting. A further note will summarize the outcomes of the Whois 
Task Force administrative meeting held on 26 June 2006. 
 
Please note that the next task force meeting is not yet scheduled, but is 
expected within the next two weeks. 
 
All the best, Maria
 
 
Whois Task Force meeting, 25 June 2006

Marie George (CNIL  - the French data protection agency ) gave a presentation 
on DP issues in relation to Whois. She confirmed that her agency has as yet 
taken no action against any registrar or registry for its Whois-related 
activities.  She also said if Whois policy development doesn't go in the right 
direction, European DPAs will start taking  enforcement actions against EU 
based/targetted registrars. MG was asked if this was the position of the French 
government and said it was not a unified position but that no French 
agency/government department required publication of data, nor would it ever. 

The main work item of the meeting was work on the OPOC proposal, on how it 
deals with registrars responding to specific complaints of inaccuracy in the 
Whois. Progress was made on understanding the application of the term 'timely 
manner' in registrars' responses to complaints and also in registrants' 
responses to registrars. T Progress was  also made on when in this process 
domains should be put on hold as opposed to revoked. Specific language changes 
were agreed on registry data and bulk access. The issues of timely manner and 
on hold/revocation were not concluded (i.e. language changes have not been 
proposed and agreed), but the TF will work on language at its next TF meeting  

 ( Next meeting is not yet scheduled but will be held within the next two 
weeks).