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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Remember that we also have "redemption grace period" to take into account.How about
a compromise of a set extension period that the registrar can invoke, if the notice has
to be sent by paper?

45 days seems too long....


... there is the cost issue/if an expiration is involved.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:35 AM
To: 'Ken Stubbs'; 'Steve Metalitz'; nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play


I can live with 45 days, which is far more reasonable.

As for the deliberate issue, that is for registrars to judge, after all
they got paid for the domain, so if the data for the ownership is
differen from the card used for payment we are getting close. I assume
we have to look into things likethat to give it any definition, if we
can give it one at all.

Kind regards

Abel

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nc-whois@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-whois@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Ken Stubbs
Sent: 25 November 2002 14:31
To: Steve Metalitz; nc-whois@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-whois] DRAFT accuracy section: state of play


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>>
>