RE: [gnso-whois-wg] Agenda July 11 call

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip:  

 

Per your e-mail that went out with version 3.0, when should we go
through all of the proposed recommendations to discuss whether the
characterizations of "AGREED" are an accurate reflection of the group's
desire?  Will we do that tomorrow or next week?  

 

"Overall I have probably used too liberally the characterisation
'AGREED' against the various recommendations and options. It should be
our task now to refine that characterisation to reflect the groups
desire."

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:16 AM
To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] Agenda July 11 call

 

 

I propose the following agenda for our July 11 call (and potentially
beyond).

 

1. Section 2.6 Admin and OPOC - can we make an effective argument for
their distinct roles?

 

2. Section 2.3, 2.4 Verification and Consent - is this a critical path
or a nice to have ?

 

3. Section 3.2 "REVEAL" versus "on request rapid take down by Registrar
when timely RELAY or

REMEDY fail".

 

4. Section 6.5 Can we conceive a practical means of authentication?

(Maybe best to await the staff report on this). 

 

Philip