RE: [gnso-whois-study] draft text to 2 study submitters for your review

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I suggest a change in each of the messages as follows:
 
Draft note to Claudio diGangi:

 

Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the hypothesis
for the Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met today to
review your wording.  The group is comfortable with the first two of
your four hypotheses, but we are concerned that the second two you
propose which call for legal analysis would be entirely speculative in
attempting to determine what legal authorities might do if these matters
were adjudicated.  We decided to include the first two of your
hypotheses in our report, but exclude the following remaining
suggestions, as follows: 

 

c. Legal analysis under a sampling of various national laws suggests
that the methods employed by registrars to disclose and obtain consent
would be adjudicated as violating national law, if adjudicated.

d. In the instance of any national law where hypothesis 3.c. is
validated, there are different methods that registrars could employ that
legal analysis suggests would be adjudicated as consistent with national
law, if adjudicated.

 

 

Draft note to Chris Paul:

 

Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the hypothesis
for the Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met today to
review your wording.  We Using your alternative wording and rationale,
we reworded the hypothesis as follows:

 

Some Registrars knowingly tolerate inaccurate or falsified Whois data so
as to attract and retain registrations by spammers and other bad actors,
and do not face deterrent consequences for doing so.

 

Basically we substituted the phrase "to attract and retain registrations
by spammers" for your previous "so as to benefit financially" to make
clear that while registrars may benefit from more registrations, they
may not be benefitting financially from the content of spam
solicitations.

 

All suggestions appreciated.  Thanks, Liz

 
I wanted to avoid the impression that we were proposing changes for
which we still wanted their response.  They clearly can still comment
via the Council process.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster
        Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:23 PM
        To: gnso-whois-study@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-whois-study] draft text to 2 study submitters for
your review
        
        

        As per our call today:

         

        Draft note to Claudio diGangi:

         

        Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the
hypothesis for the Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met
today to review your wording.  The group is comfortable with the first
two of your four hypotheses, but we are concerned that the second two
you propose which call for legal analysis would be entirely speculative
in attempting to determine what legal authorities might do if these
matters were adjudicated.  We would thus propose to include the first
two of your hypotheses in our report, but exclude the following
remaining suggestions, as follows: 

         

        c. Legal analysis under a sampling of various national laws
suggests
        that the methods employed by registrars to disclose and obtain
consent
        would be adjudicated as violating national law, if adjudicated.
        
        d. In the instance of any national law where hypothesis 3.c. is
        validated, there are different methods that registrars could
employ that
        legal analysis suggests would be adjudicated as consistent with
national
        law, if adjudicated.

         

         

        Draft note to Chris Paul:

         

        Thank you so much for providing alternative wording for the
hypothesis for the Whois study you suggested.  Our Whois study group met
today to review your wording.  We would like to suggest the following
change to your revision:

         

        Some Registrars knowingly tolerate inaccurate or falsified Whois
data so as to attract and retain registrations by spammers and other bad
actors, and do not face deterrent consequences for doing so.

         

        Basically we propose substituting the phrase "to attract and
retain registrations by spammers" for your previous "so as to benefit
financially" to make clear that while registrars may benefit from more
registrations, they may not be benefitting financially from the content
of spam solicitations.

         

        All suggestions appreciated.  Thanks, Liz