RE: [nc-whois] New drafts - please review prior to conference call.

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

Please all, be sure to read Louie Touton's clarification as well related to 15 days. Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 5:48 AM
To: nc-whois@dnso.org
Cc: Bruce Tonkin; Louis Touton
Subject: [nc-whois] New drafts - please review prior to conference call.


I have just posted new drafts for the final report and the 15 days
issues report at the following URLs:

http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030131v1.html
http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/issues-15days-030131v0.html

Please review these documents prior to the WHOIS Task Force
conference call today. I've tried to incorporate both Louis' advice
on the meaning of the 15 days period (which is, in particular,
relevant to the issues report) and the final version of the
implementation committee's report.


I have introduced alternative wording for some part of the accuracy
process (which has returned from the policy chapter to the
"practical recommendations chapter, by the way); the first
alternative was drafted by Steve yesterday, the second alternative
is from the implementation committee's draft. (II.3.B)
http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030131v1.html#Acc-IB


There is also a recommendation on a policy-development process on
the 15 days issue.  This recommendation does not cover a
"suspension" of current policy as has been suggested by some, since
that would be a NOP (no operation) according to Louis' analysis.
(II.3.C)
http://does-not-exist.net/final-report/final-report-feb03-030131v1.html#Acc-IC


Finally, as per the implementation report's recommendation, there is
now a review process recommendation which basically copies the
transfers TF report's recommendation 28.  (II.4)


You may also wish to review the consensus policies once more.  The
regular review policy has been changed to talk about an /annual/
correction opportunity for registrants instead of a verification
upon renewal.  With multi-year registrations, this means that
registrants will be given the correction opportunity /more/
frequently than with our old recommendation, so I suppose that this
is acceptable to everyone here.

The reference to the specific procedure and to the deletes task
force has gone from the Redemption Grace Period recommendation. This
mirrors the implementation committee's report, and avoids a forward
reference from a policy to a "practical recommendation."


I have also tried to produce a boiled-down version of the bulk
access policies, so we don't mix policy and general discussion.


PS: If there is any need for off-list replies, please send them to
roessler-mobile@does-not-exist.org.  I'll have to catch a train now,
and won't have access to my "usual" e-mail before Wednesday.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>