X-Apparently-To: [log in to unmask] via 66.196.100.123; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:27:45 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [192.0.35.121] Authentication-Results: mta279.mail.mud.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 mta279.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:27:45 -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 l7T9KwgY000938; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:58 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l7T9KwxC000937; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:58 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to [log in to unmask] using -f Received: from pechora3.lax.icann.org (pechora3.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.38]) by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7T9Kv3N000934 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:57 -0700 Received: from turbo.aim.be (118.216-78-194.adsl-fix.skynet.be [194.78.216.118]) by pechora3.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7T9KP8n027191 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:45 -0700 Received: from PSEVO ([192.168.1.230]) by turbo.aim.be (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l7T97Np5000820 for <[log in to unmask]>; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:07:23 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" <[log in to unmask]> To: "'GNSO Council'" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [council] WHOIS - final WG report Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:20:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0283_01C7EA2E.94DDD670" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 thread-index: AcfjxI1cckokXDoMT/mtwNKWE0PMqgFKuhLAAEsaVQA= X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.1/4099/Tue Aug 28 20:14:54 2007 on pechora3.lax.icann.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Recipient e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (pechora3.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.38]); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: [log in to unmask] Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 2689 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C7EA2E.94DDD670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chuck, see replies below. Philip Last paragraph on page 9 * I am not totally clear on what "Agreed" means. * This was a group of 70 most of whom spoke for themselves or their organisation. No attempt was made to assess support by GNSO constituency or other interest grouping. No votes were conducted. Agreed recommendations were supported unanimously or by a substantial majority present at the relevant meeting when that item was discussed, and then received insufficient objections to downgrade them. Page 19, 1st paragraph * 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? * The objective here is to avoid layers of obfuscation. All help from our service providers is welcome. Page 24, Implementation Options * 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'? * Poor editing - apologies. No. The "good faith" was a later addition. It is misplaced with the lead in. Page 27, Implementation Options * 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? * 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? * Implementation options are just that - options. I simply wanted to record the suggestions mentioned by group members but to make it clear they were NOT policy. Page 53 ff * What do the numercial numbers in the column headings mean? 25.4, 2.9, etc. * 25.4 is the 25th day of April 2007. ------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C7EA2E.94DDD670 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 6.00.6000.16525" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D984220609-29082007>Chuck, see replies below.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D984220609-29082007>Philip</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D984220609-29082007></SPAN></FONT> </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 = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>I am not totally clear on what "Agreed" = means. =20 </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT=20 color=3D#0000ff><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D984220609-29082007></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D984220609-29082007> <FONT=20 color=3D#000000>This was a group of 70 most of whom spoke for = themselves or=20 their organisation. No attempt was made to assess support by GNSO = constituency=20 or other interest grouping. No votes were conducted. Agreed = recommendations=20 were supported unanimously or by a substantial majority present = at the=20 relevant meeting when that item was discussed, and then received=20 insufficient objections to downgrade=20 them.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></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 = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>The reference to RAA clause 3.7.7.3 = appears to me to=20 cover the case when a registrant licenses use of a domain name=20 registration to a proxy service provider but, if I understand = correctly,=20 there are also lots of cases where a proxy service provider is the = actual=20 registrant and the proxy service provider licences use of the domain = name=20 registration to what could be referred to as the underlying user = of the=20 name. Did the WG discuss the second scenario? The 'Agreed' = statement says, "In order to avoid a third layer between the = underlying=20 Registrant and the OPOC, where a proxy service exists, the proxy and = the first=20 designated OPOC must be one and the same." Can I assume that = 'underlying=20 Registrant' could also mean the 'underlying licensee' in cases where = the proxy=20 service provider is actually the offical registrant?<SPAN=20 class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT = color=3D#000000>The=20 objective here is to avoid layers of obfuscation. All help from our = service=20 providers is=20 = welcome.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></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 = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>The last option is: "other e.g. good=20 faith". When I combine this with the lead in before the = bullets,=20 it would say, "Reason for Request is a reasonable suspicion of good=20 faith." Should this say 'lack of good faith' instead of 'good=20 faith'?<SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000>Poor editing - apologies. No. The "good faith" was a = later=20 addition. It is misplaced with the lead=20 in.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></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> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>The last bullet says, "Existing provisions = in certain=20 Registry agreements may provide an implementation solution." = This is=20 also stated elsewhere. What provisions are referenced here?<SPAN = class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000>Implementation options are just that - options. I = simply wanted=20 to record the suggestions mentioned by group members but to make it = clear they=20 were NOT = policy.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></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 = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>What do the numercial numbers in the = column headings=20 mean? 25.4, 2.9, etc.<SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000> </FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <LI> <DIV align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D224571521-27082007><FONT = color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20 face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2><SPAN class=3D984220609-29082007><FONT=20 color=3D#000000>25.4 is the 25th day of April 2007.=20 = </FONT> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></LI></UL></BODY></= HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0283_01C7EA2E.94DDD670--