RE: [nc-whois] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions for Policy Implem entation]
A further question: Your posting states: "Many of the policy proposals in
the interim reports of the Transfers and Whois Task Forces contemplate
implementation by registrars and registry operators, yet many of those
entities have expressed strong opposition to them." With regard to the
Whois Task Force, can you direct the Task Force to any of those expressions?
I did not see any on the comment archive on our report yet.
From: Louis Touton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:39 AM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: [RE: [nc-whois] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions for Policy
Thanks for your note. As you note, enforcing existing the existing
Whois obligations is not likely (in ordinary circumstances) to trigger
the need for demonstrating compliance with the consensus policy
provisions. Those provisions relate to a provider's promises to assume
new or changed obligations created by policies created after the
agreement is signed.
Your questions about 1.0.A.4 will require some analysis. Unfortunately,
with the need to complete a .org agreement, etc., I will not have time
to do that analysis before Shanghai.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions for Policy
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:34:18 -0400
From: Steve Metalitz <email@example.com>
To: Marilyn Cade <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "NC-WHOIS (E-mail)"
<email@example.com>, Louis Touton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Louis, can you clarify one aspect of your briefing?
During the past two months, while the recommendations now contained in
section 1.0.A.4.a, c and d of the WHOIS TF Interim Report were being
reviewed by Task Force members (including the representatives of the
registrar and registry constituencies), we were operating under the
assumption that these represented implementation of the current RAA
provisions, and not proposals for new RAA obligations. (Cf.
recommendations 1.0.B. and 1.0.C, which specifically refer to
renegotiation of the RAA). This is why they are phrased in terms of
supplementation of the May 10, 2002 registrar advisory. For example,
recommendation 1.0.A.4.c recommends that the words "may not be" in that
advisory be changed to "is not."
Is it your opinion that implementation of the listed recommendations in
1.0.A.4 would require revision of the RAA? Or could they be implemented
through a revision of the May 10, 2002 registrar advisory without
reopening the RAA?
Thank you in advance for your clarification on this point.
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:23 AM
To: NC-WHOIS (E-mail); Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: [nc-whois] FW: Briefing on Legal Conditions for Policy
As I had indicated I would, I asked Louie to consult with us on the
issues related to the contracts for implementation of a policy
recommendation by registrars and/or registries. He prepared the
attached and forwarded to the Names Council last night.
Please review before our calls.
We need to assess our recommendations against this legal clarification,
and determine if there is additional work needed.
I think it will be helpful, after we digest this, to be able to also
consult with Louis Touton, General Counsel.