RE: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted.
Regarding item 3(b)(3)-(5), in the spirit of cooperation (or is it
exhaustion?), my current thinking is to accept the language proposed by the
Implementation Committee, but to address the following issues in the Part II
(1) Second sentence of (3): this implies that some human evaluation of the
acceptability of the justification is required.
(2) We interpret (4) as dealing with no response (or unacceptable response)
to the second inquiry provided for in (3). The time period certainly should
be brief in this case since the registrar has already made contact with the
registrant in step 2.
(3) Since the Registrar Advisory already indicates that "reasonable steps"
to contact the registrant means using all available means, the
"contactability" requirement of point 5 ordinarily means contactability
through all means (mail, phone, fax, e-mail). Remember that this is for a
registration that has already been placed on registrar hold, meaning there
is already very strong grounds for questioning the accuracy of the data.
I would be interested in your thoughts about whether these points should be
expressed in the text of the recommendation (by amending what came from the
Implementation Committee) rather than just in our Discussion. I think this
might be needed, especially as to the last point above, but I am planning to
sleep on it.
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 2:20 PM
Subject: [nc-whois] Final report: Next iteration posted.
The next iteration of our final report is available at
I hope I have captured all relevant changes from our conference call
today. I have also added proposed additional wording on the
redemption grace period policy. It's not perfect -- improvements
Have a nice evening,
Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>