Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
(resend - unfortunately i sent it from the wrong address last night - just noticed that it had not made it)
On 21 sep 2006, at 17.44, Jordyn Buchanan wrote:
ust a reminder to everyone that if you have other ideas to improve the OPOC proposal, please try to send them to the list (or update the Writely document and then let us know) no later than tomorrow. This will help us have a useful discussion on Monday's call.
- correct one typo (the absence of a period and trailing space) without using brackets.
- recommended a change of word 'is not obligated' for 'is not obligation'
Added two Proposals 5,6
- re: Proposed 5
I think that:
The name of the Registered Name Holder
may still fall into that category. I do not know that we have ever finished the conversations on this topic. I for one am not sure I understand why this is needed given that there is an OPOC charged with being the contact for all registration and operational issues.
If, however, this has been agreed to by everyone except me, then i accept that there is rough consensus on it. I just want to make sure that this is reviewed for its level of rough consensus.
Note: Obviously the registrar will have the name of the registered name holder in order to resolve inaccuracies and to provide law enforcement and other legally entitled entities with whatever the local law permit/requires them to provide.
I still have problems with the phrase 'timely manner' and would be comfortable with something like ' time manner but not less then 60 days' or some such measure.
- also Re Proposed Language 4: I want to reiterate how important I think it is that the consumer be kept informed, and reminded, of the purpose for which various data is kept and various data is published. I also think it is important that there be a pointer back to authoritative language on that purpose (ICANN theoretically can provide the authoritative language) not matter what translation a registrar may choose to provide for their customers.