ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-dow123]


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

Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
  • From: "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn.buchanan@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:59:23 -0400

I've made a few edits, following up on Avri's:

(1) Added Tim Ruiz's proposal that we include initial registration and
expiration date in the registry Whois;
(2) Added a proposal to include registrant country and state/province.  This
addition is intended to address the concern that was raised that without
this information it might be difficult to determine appropriate jurisdiction
for a domain name;
(3) Changed Avri's Proposed 5 and Proposed 6 notations, because the order
didn't really make sense anymore.  I'm not going to try to number the
proposals, because they are likely to change over time.  Hopefully we can
provide adequate clarity during the call about where the changes are.  Also
changed Avri's Proposed removal of the Registered Name Holder's name to use
strikeout to make it more clear what the proposal is.

All edits should be reflected in the live Writely document and proposals are
called out in Bold.

Jordyn

On 9/25/06, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

(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.

bit late but just made a pass through the doc:

- 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.


- re Proposed 6, Under correcting Inaccurate Whois data

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.


thanks a.









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