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.
Last paragraph on page 9
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
Page 53 ff
Chuck Gomes
"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."
Final outcomes
report of the WHOIS WG for discussion August 30.
Philip