<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Regarding Section 3.2, I am a bit puzzled why no reference at all
is made to a significant qualifier included in Rec 6. Rec 6 only
refers to reducing the occurrence of the accuracy groups of
Substantial Failure and Full Failure (of contactibility of the
contact). In other words, if there is a partial inaccuracy, this
would not even be covered by the recommendation if sufficient
contactibility is maintained by the remaining contact points.
WHOIS ARS does not make such a differentiation either, and instead
goes beyond the recommendation as it merely looks for any error in
the data regardless of whether the remaining data provides for
sufficient contactibility. The data from the ARS would have to be
analyzed in more significant detail before making the
determination of whether the recommendation was implemented. I
also am not convinced that the observations under 3.2 are fit to
match the recommendation, and some are baseless speculation:</p>
<p>1) This may very well be the case, but eneral improvement of the
whois data is not what the recommendation is about. The
recommendation is about achieving a certain level of accuracy, not
total accuracy as the ARS is designed for. <br>
</p>
<p>2) We should not speculate on causes for reasons of why the
numbers are what they are. Accordingly, the entire second
paragraph should be removed. <br>
</p>
<p>3) Again, the inaccurate rate is of no importance in the contect
of the recommendation. The only rate of concern would be that of
inaccuracies that would be considered as Substantial and Full
Failure of contactibility of the contact. Therefore this
observation has no relevance to the recommendation as it stands.</p>
<p>4) Instead of seldom, I would use the term "very rarely, and only
in the first cycle" to correctly reflect the numbers. Four cases
of breach notices out of 2,688 tickets is statistically
irrelevant.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>With regard to section 3.5, I fully disregard with the phrasing
of the statement in section 4 that refers to "... if the WDRP were
fully enforced...". We have no reason to believe that at this time
this policy is not fully enforced and followed by registrars
merely because of a report ICANN issued in 2004, especially as the
followig section points out that we do not have reliable data from
the compliance audit program. We must look at the situation today
and if we have no data on that, we cannot make such a statement. I
therefore suggest to strike the entire last paragraph of section
4. If anything, we should ask for compliance to provide better and
more detailed data.</p>
<p>Further, the recommendation focusses on the impact of these
messages, not on the observance of the policy by contracted
parties, so the fifth paragraph focussing on registrar compliance
misses that point entirely and should be removed. I agree with the
assessment that rec 9 has not been implemented though.<br>
</p>
<p>4.0-4.5 This section should again loses focus of the actual
content of the recommendations to improving contactibility, not
overall accuracy. We should therefore rephrase this section
accordingly. Instead of "accuracy" and "reliability" we should use
instead the terminology of sufficient contactibility, substantial
and full failure.</p>
<p>4.2. What is the basis for this belief? As the ARS program took
great lengths to create a significant sample size, its results
regarding accuracy as a percentage should have some statistical
relevance regarding the overall inaccuracy. Also, inaccuracies
should be graded by the standards laid down in the
recommendations. Insignificant inaccuracies that do not affect
contactibility were still reported by the ARS program and included
in the statistics, but play no role in the evaluation of the
implementation of the recommendations. For example, many ARS
compliance reports we received were for formatting errors where
the data in the WHOIS, while accurate, did not match the format
prescribed by the RAA, was entered in the wrong field, etc. Such
inaccuracies do not normally affect contactibility.</p>
<p>4.3 I disagree with the section headline. The contractual
compliance report to the contrary demonstrates proper enforcement
of these obligations as they demonstrate the enforcement actions
taken upon discovery of a deficiency. I also would argue for the
removal of the section regarding Avalanche, since it is anecdotal
at best and has no implication on compliance as the obligations
are phrased in a way to allow multiple venues and methods of
verification. <br>
</p>
<p>4.4. seems to be missing a word in the headline. <br>
Also, as the the privacy proxy service take the role of the
registrant in the public whois, on the accuracy of its own contact
data should be of relevance for whois accuracy. Any issues with
inaccuracies of the underlying data do not factor into the
recommandations as issue for this subgroup. Instead any
discussions of underlying data accuracies should be restricted to
the privacy proxy subgroup.</p>
<p>4.5. As inaccuracy of whois is not at issue, this entire section
would need reworking. I also do not agree with its conclusion that
the measures are not sufficient to fulfill the targets of the
recommendations. <br>
</p>
<p>I also reject the assumption of the perception of non-compliance
by registrars with their obligations. From my own experience, most
inaccuracy reports received are not preventable by the measures
required by the RAA. A record may be fully validatable and
verifyable, yet still be incorrect. For example, an address may be
perfectly formatted in accordance with the requirements, thus
passing every required validation, yet still be incorrect due to
the street not existing or being the address of someone else. I
therefore strongly suggest removing the last paragraph of section
1 of 4.5.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 25.05.2018 um 12:40 schrieb SUN
Lili:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b369a686dd1b41169860df5bb7a2ba6f@MBX21.interpol.int">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear
all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Sorry
for the late submission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Please
refer to attached the revised version of the Data Accuracy
subgroup draft report, which incorporated the discussion of
2<sup>nd</sup> F2F meeting and answers to the follow up
questions on Data accuracy and Compliance from ICANN. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
to the proposed recommendations, I’ll reflect in Compliance
subgroup draft report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Lili</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
***************************************************************************************************<br>
This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and
subject of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the
designated police/justice purpose and by the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed. The information is not to be
disseminated to another agency or third party without the
author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is
necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the
information is to be used. All practicable steps shall be taken
by the recipients to ensure that information is protected
against unauthorised access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the
right to enquire about the use of the information provided.<br>
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this message in error. In such a case, you should not
print it, copy it, make any use of it or disclose it, but please
notify us immediately and delete the message from any computer.<br>
*************************************************************************************************<br>
</div>
<!--'"--><br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org">RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
</pre>
</body>
</html>