DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-whois] whois: some questions...

I'm currently trying to incorporate the changes we made during the
call.  In some sections, there are some open questions.

In the accuracy complaint handling process, I've changed "the
registrar must" language to "the registrar should", and "the
registrant must" to "the registrant should be required to".  

I'm not entirely sure about the status of the Commission's
submission. Steve's proposed changes would "downgrade" this to a
single department's submission, and from our discussion, I'm not
sure this is appropriate. Louis?

Kristy also sent me a note on further changes to the review process
which apparently had been discussed while I was briefly away from
the phone.  I think there must have been a mis-understanding.  My
impression from the earlier discussion was that the ENTIRE review
process would be replaced by a single sentence: 

	"The WHOIS Task Force recommends that the implementation and
	adoption of the recommendations made in this report be
	monitored by the ICANN staff with appropriate reports to the
	GNSO Council, consistent with the PDP."

I've also taken the liberty to adapt some of the editorial notes to
reference the Task Force's consultations with the GC.  I hope that's
ok with you.

I'm not yet posting a final draft since I've not received the
updated language from Steve for chapter III (used to be II) and the
proposed language from Louis on the complaints process.

It would be good if I could get these updates within the next, say,
three hours.  (It's getting late here.)

Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>