[council] WHOIS - final WG report

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

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.