Re: [registrars] submission to House Committee - DRAFT

[Jim Archer <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Some style comments...

Instead of referring to registrants both as registrants and clients, I 
suggest "domain owners."  They may not know what a registrant is and client 
I think puts the wrong message across.
You say "... are not an insignificant burden on the registrar community..." 
Why not just say something like "place a significant burden on ..." instead 
of employing the double negative?  Ditto with the other double negatives 
that follow.
Also, does placing this additional burden upon us cause us to incur 
liability if we make a mistake?  Should we request language in any 
legislation that protects us form litigation which may stem from a small 
clerical error on our part?  Or from our failure to detect the bad 
information?
Jim




--On Friday, September 05, 2003 5:42 PM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Registrars - I have drafted a potential submission on behalf of the
> Constituency to the US Congress Committee that held the hearing yesterday
> on Whois accuracy. The goal of this letter is to illustrate for the
> Committee the accuracy methods that we already implement and the costs of
> doing so, so that they understand that what we do demonstrates our
> compliance with the RAA.  Please indulge any spelling errors at this
> point.  I will edit it further before sending the letter to Congress, but
> wanted to get it out to you before the weekend.
>
> The hearing record will remain open only through Wednesday, so please
> send me your edits by Close of Business Monday, Sept. 8th, so that I can
> incorporate them into this draft.
>
> Regards,
>
> Elana
>
>  <<Registrants' Whois Accuracy Congress letter.doc>>