I’m also in favor to make the change, so the text is in line with the RAA. May I call on all of you, members of this WG to reply asap (and within the next 24 hours) so we can proceed with the administration of the motion process and get the report voted. Rudi Vansnick

Op 20-jun.-2015, om 16:10 heeft Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> het volgende geschreven:

Dear all,

Please all read this careful and try to reply on list as soon as possible.

It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report

The Recommendation reads currently:

Recommendation #4 The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable. Level of consensus: Full Consensus

The term ‘verified’ in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used instead of “verification”. Both co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical mistake as the Group meant to use the term ‘validate’ not ‘verifiy’ and it should be changed accordingly.

With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying the GNSO Council’s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and in time for Wednesday’s Council discussion and vote.

Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

I was there during the presentation to the GNSO Council when this was discovered. I believe this was an editorial misstep on the part of the working group and that there was no intention to suggest such a material change to obligations that are beyond the remit of this working group. I support the change as proposed below. Jim On 6/20/15 4:10 PM, Lars Hoffmann wrote:

Dear all,

Please all read this careful and*try to reply on list as soon as possible*.

It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report

The Recommendation reads currently:

*/Recommendation #4/*/ The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable./

*/Level of consensus: Full Consensus/*

The term ‘verified’ in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used instead of “verification”. Both co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical mistake as the Group meant to use the term ‘validate’ _not_ ‘verifiy’ and it should be changed accordingly.

With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying the GNSO Council’s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and in time for Wednesday’s Council discussion and vote.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Lars

Lars, I consent to the change, ie to the use of "validate". Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 21 Jun 2015 03:12, "Lars Hoffmann" <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Please all read this careful and* try to reply on list as soon as possible*.

It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report

The Recommendation reads currently:

*Recommendation #4** The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable.*

*Level of consensus: Full Consensus*

The term ‘verified’ in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of the Contracted Parties. As the substance of the Final Report on that particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used instead of “verification”. Both co-Chairs agree that this is a clerical mistake as the Group meant to use the term ‘validate’ *not* ‘verifiy’ and it should be changed accordingly.

With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying the GNSO Council’s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and in time for Wednesday’s Council discussion and vote.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Lars

Dear All, I hereby consent to this correction (clarification). Best,PÖetter --  Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 20 juni 2015, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> skrev:

Dear all,

Please all read this careful andtry to reply on list as soon as possible.

It has come to our attention that there was an important term mistakenly used in Recommendation #4 of our Final Report

The Recommendation reads currently:

Recommendation #4The Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant L Policy, Additional Whois Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact information data are verified, in accordance with the aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be easily identifiable. Level of consensus: Full Consensus

The term ‘verified’ in the second sentence of the recommendation has legal implications and would change significantly the contractual obligations of the Contracted Parties. As thesubstance of the Final Report on that particular issue makes it clear that "validation" was intended to be used instead of“verification”. Bothco-Chairs agree that this is a clerical mistake as the Group meant to use the term ‘validate’ not ‘verifiy’ and it should be changed accordingly.

With your consent we would like change the working to reflect the actual meaning of what the Group meant to recommend. In order to prevent delaying the GNSO Council’s vote on our Final Report, this would have to happen as soon as possible so that the Motion to adopt can be changed accordingly and in time for Wednesday’s Council discussion and vote.

Many thanks and best wishes, Lars