Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i like that wording .. sounds good to me..

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
To: <abel@able-towers.com>; "'Ken Stubbs'" <kstubbs@digitel.net>; "Steve
Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>; <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play


> Ken, re "deliberately provided," how about adding the words in CAPS to the
> current section 5(b):
>
> The specifics of acceptable documentation in this situation, should be the
> subject of further discussions WITH REGISTRARS AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES,
> WHICH SHOULD ALSO ADDRESS WHEN THE "DELIBERATELY PROVIDED" SCENARIO IN THE
> REGISTRAR ADVISORY SHOULD BE APPLICABLE.
>
> Part of the problem may be that this is not a contractual term so it may
> need further definition.
>
> Regarding the 15-day period, there is simply not enough evidence of
problems
> with the provision that has been in place for about three years now. At
this
> point we do not even know how many registrations have ever been cancelled
> for failure to respond within 15 days, much less in how many of these a
> response would have been forthcoming in 30 or 45 days.  Additionally, if
> cancellation is replaced with a "hold" process, in effect registrants will
> have much more than 15 days to reclaim their registrations by submitting
> valid contact data.  I believe the proper course is to monitor
developments,
> as reflected in section 5(c).
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:35 AM
> To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Steve Metalitz'; nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> I can live with 45 days, which is far more reasonable.
>
> As for the deliberate issue, that is for registrars to judge, after all
> they got paid for the domain, so if the data for the ownership is
> differen from the card used for payment we are getting close. I assume
> we have to look into things likethat to give it any definition, if we
> can give it one at all.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
> Of Ken Stubbs
> Sent: 25 November 2002 14:31
> To: Steve Metalitz; nc-whois@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> we still have issues with the 15 day provisions here.. they are not
> practical ...
>
> i am still concerned about how one determines whether inaccurate data
> was "deliberately provided" sure.. everyone uses the example of "mickey
> mouse" or "anytown usa" but how do we apply these standards to other
> languages & locations as well as tel #'s etc..
>
> this needs to be elaborated more clearly
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
> To: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:57 PM
> Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play
>
>
> > With aim of working to finalize language at our Monday teleconference,
> here
> > is the state of play on the accuracy section.  This is essentially the
>
> > mark-up circulated off the public list by Kristy on Tuesday 11/19,
> > incorporating a specific suggestion made by Karen (in the preamble)
> > that
> had
> > not been incorporated by Kristy.    It retains Thomas' yellow markings
> > though no change in text has been suggested on these.  In item 8 it
> includes
> > alternative formulations proposed by Thomas and by me.  I am not
> > asserting that this text has been "agreed to," since I know there are
> > a number of outstanding questions, from Ken and perhaps others, but I
> > think it suummarizes where things stand and is the basic text which we
>
> > should think about over the weekend and try to finalize on our Monday
> > call.  We have diverted a lot of attention (and I think rather
> > successfully) to the bulk access section but I suggest it is time to
> > bring this section to a conclusion as well.
> >
> > Steve Metalitz
> >
> >  <<Domain Names Whois TF nov 22 state of draft on accuracy sjm
> 112202.doc>>
> >
>
>