RE: [gnso-whois-wg] FW: Whois 1.4

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Chris:

Just a reminder that the report Maria prepared is supposed to represent 
accurately where _agreement_ exists or does not exist. You seem to be trying to 
rewrite the policy to make it more to your liking, which is not what we’re 
doing now. (Correct me if I’m wrong Maria – if I am, I’ve got about 120 changes 
in the draft _I’d_ like to make!) 

--MM

 

   _____  

From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Christopher Gibson
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx; 'Maria Farrell'
Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-wg] FW: Whois 1.4

 

Dear Maria,

 

I have attached version 1.4 with several suggested changes (in red-line form).  
My suggested changes relate to two points:

 

(1) Agency (section 2.2): replace “the OPOC should in broad terms have a 
similar relationship to the registrant as an agent” with ““the OPOC should have 
a contractual relationship with the registrant which provides for certain 
obligations, including the OPOC serving as the point of contact for the 
registrant and performing the RELAY, REVEAL and REMEDY functions.

 

(2) Consent (sections 2.4,, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4): Change section 2.4 as 
follows: “Given the OPOC acts the agent point of contact for the Registrant and 
has certain obligations, the OPOC must consent to being an OPOC, including 
consent to perform the RELAY, REVEAL and REMEDY functions as described below.”  
Similar consistent changes are made in the other sections.  Section 4 would 
include a new first paragraph: “The consent of the OPOC to act as the point of 
contact for the registrant and to perform the RELAY, REVEAL and REMEDY 
functions must be obtained and is integral to compliance and enforcement of the 
OPOC’s duties.”

 

I continue to have strong concerns that the OPOC system, as reflected in draft 
version 1.4, does not adequately create incentives for OPOCs to properly 
fulfill their duties.  Further, as I mentioned in the conference call, the weak 
link posed by the OPOC not only creates cost and delay, but encourages those 
who wish to engage in wrongful activity to register as self-declared natural 
persons.

 

Chris Gibson

 

   _____  

From: owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Maria Farrell
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:29 AM
To: gnso-whois-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-whois-wg] FW: Whois 1.4

 

Dear Working Group Participants

 

Attached for review and discussion is version 1.4 of the Draft Outcomes Report 
of this Working Group. Philip has revised the report to show the changes 
discussed on yesterday's call. 

 

The report also includes in Annex 2 the relevant Registrar Accreditation 
Agreement provision regarding Whois data accuracy, i.e. that wilful provision 
of inaccurate or unreliable information, or failure to correct information is a 
material breach which is a basis for cancellation of the registered name. 

 

Our next conference call will be next Wednesday, 18 July, at the usual time.

 

All the best, Maria 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 5:44 
PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: 7/10/2007 5:44 
PM