Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Changes to OPOC proposal
- From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:20:09 -0400
Just a word of support regarding the name of registered domain holder.
Especially now that some are proposing to add to the public record an
indication of jurisdiction, the need for the name is questionable. Well,
more than questionable. I can see one or the other, but definitely not
both. And if we have to choose, it makes more sense to indicate the
jurisdiction of the registered name holder than it does to put the name
>>> Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 9/25/2006 2:47:40 PM >>>
(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
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.