RE: [nc-deletes] Draft report

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Adam,

That's why I thought we should discuss it. The Whois TF and Implementation
Committee is dealing with the documentary evidence after receiving a
complaint about accurate data, but prior to deletion. We're dealing with it
after the deletion to redeem it from the RGP. But I don't think there is a
need to have two definitions of the acceptable documentary evidence.

However, the Whois Implementation report will be done before we submit our
final report. So we'll be able to see what comes out of that and how we may
want to use it.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-deletes@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:27 AM
To: nc-deletes@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-deletes] Draft report


>Jordyn,
>
>Excellent draft. I have only a few comments/suggestions.
>
>ISSUE #1, first paragraph, delete the third sentence. The same thing
>can be accomplished by provided a grace period during which the name
>is not auto-renewed but is not immediately deleted unless an
>explicit delete command is issued by the sponsoring registrar. In
>fact, this is currently being considered by VeriSign.
>
>ISSUE #1, second paragraph, we may want to provide something
>concrete from registrars or registries to back up the statistic in
>the last sentence.
>
>ISSUE #1, last paragraph, I recommend that we add "before the end of
>the grace period" for clarification.
>
>ISSUE #2, last paragraph, I recommend that we either define the
>documentation or request an extension to address it. However, I have
>been involved on the WHOIS TF Report Implementation Committee and it
>appears that there is a move toward defining this in that report. We
>should discuss that.
>

Tim, Hi.

What happens if we define differently from the WHOIS TF?

Did the WHOIS TF agree to our being responsible as:

    2. The scope of the Deletes Task Force is to determine what happens to a
domain name once it has been deleted for reasons relating to the
domains' Whois data.

Thanks,

Adam




>ISSUE #3, fourth paragraph, it should be noted that VeriSign's
>approval for WLS included a provision that they cannot implement WLS
>no sooner than six months following the implementation of the
>Redemption Grace Period. So we may want to reword this so it doesn't
>sound as though VeriSign is procrastinating on the WLS. It might
>also be interesting, but not necessary, to speak with VeriSign about
>it and determine if they are still determined to move forward with
>the WLS. Or that might be best kept for the further analysis we are
>recommending on this issue.
>
>Tim
>
>------------------------------------------------------------

--