X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] via 66.196.100.125; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:11:43 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [192.0.35.121]
Authentication-Results: mta236.mail.re4.yahoo.com from=gnso.icann.org; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 192.0.35.121 (EHLO greenriver.icann.org) (192.0.35.121)
by mta236.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:11:42 -0700
Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver [127.0.0.1])
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7RN5XOL022409;
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:33 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l7RN5XfC022408;
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:33 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to [log in to unmask] using -f
Received: from pechora4.lax.icann.org (pechora4.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.39])
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7RN5Td9022405
for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:29 -0700
Received: from osprey.verisign.com (osprey.verisign.com [216.168.239.75])
by pechora4.lax.icann.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l7RN4w6Q027505
for <[log in to unmask]>; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:18 -0700
Received: from dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.113])
by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l7RN0lGM009500;
Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:00:47 -0400
Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn03.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:04:52 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7E8FE.AC9949BE"
Subject: RE: [council] WHOIS - final WG report
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:04:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <004801c7e3c4$8d799880$e601a8c0@PSEVO>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [council] WHOIS - final WG report
thread-index: AcfjxI1cckokXDoMT/mtwNKWE0PMqgFKuhLA
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <[log in to unmask]>,
"GNSO Council" <[log in to unmask]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2007 23:04:52.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACD0A2C0:01C7E8FE]
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.3/4078/Mon Aug 27 13:37:54 2007 on pechora4.lax.icann.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (pechora4.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.39]); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: bulk
Content-Length: 3523
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7E8FE.AC9949BE
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Philip for all of your long hours of work on this and thanks also
to all of the WG members and staff members. I have a few clarification
questions that probably would be best answered before our meeting
Wednesday and thereby save time for weightier issues.
=20
Last paragraph on page 9
*=09
I am not totally clear on what "Agreed" means. If I am reading
the description of the 'convention' used correctly, it appears to mean
that there was at least 'majority' support by participating WG members
with at most a few alternative views. Is that correct? If so, is it
fair to conclude then that this is not necessarily the same as "strong
support" as used in the New gTLD Committee work? In otherwords, it
could mean at one end of the scale that less than half of WG
participants expressed opposition or at the other end that there was
unanimous support if there were no alternative views reported. Is my
interpretation accurate?
Page 19, 1st paragraph
*=09
The reference to RAA clause 3.7.7.3 appears to me to cover the
case when a registrant licenses use of a domain name registration to a
proxy service provider but, if I understand correctly, there are also
lots of cases where a proxy service provider is the actual registrant
and the proxy service provider licences use of the domain name
registration to what could be referred to as the underlying user of the
name. Did the WG discuss the second scenario? The 'Agreed' statement
says, "In order to avoid a third layer between the underlying Registrant
and the OPOC, where a proxy service exists, the proxy and the first
designated OPOC must be one and the same." Can I assume that
'underlying Registrant' could also mean the 'underlying licensee' in
cases where the proxy service provider is actually the offical
registrant?
Page 24, Implementation Options
*=09
The last option is: "other e.g. good faith". When I combine
this with the lead in before the bullets, it would say, "Reason for
Request is a reasonable suspicion of good faith." Should this say 'lack
of good faith' instead of 'good faith'?
Page 27, Implementation Options
*=09
12 hour and 72 hour time frames seem awfully short in cases
where a registrant may be traveling, etc. Did the WG discuss such time
frames? Did the WG conclude that such time frames were reasonable?
*=09
The last bullet says, "Existing provisions in certain Registry
agreements may provide an implementation solution." This is also stated
elsewhere. What provisions are referenced here?
Page 53 ff
*=09
What do the numercial numbers in the column headings mean?
25.4, 2.9, etc.
=20
Chuck Gomes
=20
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."=20
=20
________________________________
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:26 AM
To: 'GNSO Council'
Subject: [council] WHOIS - final WG report
=09
=09
Final outcomes report of the WHOIS WG for discussion August 30.
=20
This is now available at http://gnso.icann.org/
<http://gnso.icann.org/>=20
and directly at:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf>=20
=20
Philip=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7E8FE.AC9949BE
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Thanks Philip for all of your long hours of =
work on this=20
and thanks also to all of the WG members and staff members. I have =
a few=20
clarification questions that probably would be best answered before our =
meeting=20
Wednesday and thereby save time for weightier =
issues.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><U><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Last paragraph on page =
9</FONT></U></SPAN></DIV>
<UL dir=3Dltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>I am not totally clear on what "Agreed" means. If I am =
reading=20
the description of the 'convention' used correctly, it appears to mean =
that=20
there was at least 'majority' support by participating WG members =
with at=20
most a few alternative views. Is that correct? If so, is =
it fair=20
to conclude then that this is not necessarily the same as "strong =
support" as=20
used in the New gTLD Committee work? In otherwords, it could =
mean at one=20
end of the scale that less than half of WG participants expressed =
opposition=20
or at the other end that there was unanimous support if there were no=20
alternative views reported. Is my interpretation=20
accurate?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><U><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Page 19, 1st paragraph</FONT></U></SPAN></DIV>
<UL dir=3Dltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>The reference to RAA clause 3.7.7.3 appears to me to cover =
the case=20
when a registrant licenses use of a domain name registration to a =
proxy=20
service provider but, if I understand correctly, there are also lots =
of cases=20
where a proxy service provider is the actual registrant and the proxy =
service=20
provider licences use of the domain name registration to what could be =
referred to as the underlying user of the name. Did the WG =
discuss=20
the second scenario? The 'Agreed' statement says, "<FONT =
face=3DArial>In=20
order to avoid a third layer between the underlying Registrant and the =
OPOC,=20
where a proxy service exists, the proxy and the first designated OPOC =
must be=20
one and the same.</FONT>" Can I assume that 'underlying =
Registrant'=20
could also mean the 'underlying licensee' in cases where the proxy =
service=20
provider is actually the offical =
registrant?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><U><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Page 24, Implementation =
Options</FONT></U></SPAN></DIV>
<UL dir=3Dltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>The last option is: "<FONT face=3DArial>other e.g. good=20
faith</FONT>". When I combine this with the lead in before =
the=20
bullets, it would say, "<FONT face=3DArial>Reason for Request is a =
reasonable=20
suspicion of good faith.</FONT>" Should this say 'lack of good =
faith'=20
instead of 'good faith'?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><U><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Page 27, Implementation =
Options</FONT></U></SPAN></DIV>
<UL dir=3Dltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>12 hour and 72 hour time frames seem awfully short in cases =
where a=20
registrant may be traveling, etc. Did the WG discuss such time=20
frames? Did the WG conclude that such time frames were=20
reasonable?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>The last bullet says, "<FONT face=3DArial>Existing provisions =
in certain=20
Registry agreements may provide an implementation =
solution.</FONT>" This=20
is also stated elsewhere. What provisions are referenced=20
here?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><U>Page 53 ff</U></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<UL dir=3Dltr>
<LI>
<DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>What do the numercial numbers in the column headings =
mean? 25.4,=20
2.9, etc.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>Chuck Gomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>"This message is intended =
for the use=20
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain=20
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure =
under=20
applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is =
strictly=20
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify =
sender=20
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> [log in to unmask] =
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip=20
Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:26 =
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'GNSO=20
Council'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] WHOIS - final WG=20
report<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D671302407-21082007>Final outcomes=20
report of the WHOIS WG for discussion August 30.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D671302407-21082007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D671302407-21082007>This =
is now=20
available at <A href=3D"http://gnso.icann.org/"><U><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>http://gnso.icann.org/</U></FONT></A></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D+0><SPAN class=3D671302407-21082007>
<P><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D671302407-21082007>and directly=20
at: </SPAN></FONT></FONT><A=20
=
href=3D"http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf"=
><U><FONT=20
color=3D#0000ff><FONT face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-whois-wg-report-final-1-9.pdf=
</FONT></U></FONT></A></P></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Philip=20
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7E8FE.AC9949BE--