Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play

[Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

we still have issues with the 15 day provisions here.. they are not
practical ...

i am still concerned about how one determines whether inaccurate data was
"deliberately provided"
sure.. everyone uses the example of "mickey mouse" or "anytown usa" but how
do we apply these standards to other
languages & locations as well as tel #'s etc..

this needs to be elaborated more clearly

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@iipa.com>
To: <nc-whois@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play


> With aim of working to finalize language at our Monday teleconference,
here
> is the state of play on the accuracy section.  This is essentially the
> mark-up circulated off the public list by Kristy on Tuesday 11/19,
> incorporating a specific suggestion made by Karen (in the preamble) that
had
> not been incorporated by Kristy.    It retains Thomas' yellow markings
> though no change in text has been suggested on these.  In item 8 it
includes
> alternative formulations proposed by Thomas and by me.  I am not asserting
> that this text has been "agreed to," since I know there are a number of
> outstanding questions, from Ken and perhaps others, but I think it
> suummarizes where things stand and is the basic text which we should think
> about over the weekend and try to finalize on our Monday call.  We have
> diverted a lot of attention (and I think rather successfully) to the bulk
> access section but I suggest it is time to bring this section to a
> conclusion as well.
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>  <<Domain Names Whois TF nov 22 state of draft on accuracy sjm
112202.doc>>
>