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

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

All:

On lines 450-454, there is a mistake I think in characterizing agreement. 

The report says “There were circumstances where both LEAs and private actors 
must have access described above (6.2, 6.3, 6.4).”

 

 It was _Not_ agreed that private actors should have the type of access 
described in 6.4, i.e. bulk access. Indeed, it was agreed that under the 
assumptions of the OPoC proposal private actors should not have that type of 
access. At any rate, I do not, and am sure that certain other WG members would 
not, agree to that statement.

 

Some grammatical issues:

 

Line 184 ff

 

>In order to avoid a third layer between the underlying Registrant and the 
>OPOC, where a proxy service exists, the OPOC must only be the Proxy.

I have trouble making sense of this. Do you mean to say, “…where a proxy 
service exists, ONLY the OPoC can be the proxy,” or do you mean to say, “…the 
OPoC must be the ONLY proxy.” ???

Line 191 ff:

>While certain Registrars and large users claim that the admin and/or tech 
>contacts will continue 

>to be useful even once an OPOC is additional appointed, other Registrars and 
>most users prefer 

>a merging of roles so long as no useful means of contact are lost.

 

Yechhhh…don’t you mean:

 

While certain Registrars and large users claim that the administrative and/or 
technical contacts will continue to be useful even after an additional OPOC is 
appointed, other Registrars and most users prefer a merging of roles, if no 
useful means of contact are lost.

 

 

   _____  

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: Milton L Mueller; 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