RE: [council] WHOIS - final WG report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

*       
        What do the numercial numbers in the column headings mean?
25.4, 2.9, etc.

 
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." 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 3:26 AM
        To: 'GNSO Council'
        Subject: [council] WHOIS - final WG report
        
        
        Final outcomes report of the WHOIS WG for discussion August 30.
         
        This is now available at http://gnso.icann.org/
<http://gnso.icann.org/> 
        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> 

         
        Philip