[GNSO-Accuracy-ST] FW: Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct / Definition

[Berry Cobb]

Hi All,

We are experiencing issues with the mailing list. Please see the Chair’s message below.

Thank you.

B


Berry Cobb
Policy Development - Portfolio Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
berry.cobb at icann.org


From: GNSO-Accuracy-ST <gnso-accuracy-st-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Michael Palage <michael at palage.com>
Reply-To: "michael at palage.com" <michael at palage.com>
Date: Friday, November 26, 2021 at 12:02
To: "gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org" <gnso-accuracy-st at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-Accuracy-ST] Update - Working Accuracy Contractual Construct / Definition

Hello All,

For those colleagues that celebrated the Thanksgiving holiday yesterday, I hope you had an enjoyable time with your family and friends and did not eat too much.   I would also like to thanks those team members that showed up for our brief Administrative Call yesterday.

In preparing for the call yesterday I noted some of the new additions added by the RySG to the questions for ICANN staff. Thank you for these additions Roger. This flagged a previous issue which I had raised with our ICANN colleagues last weekend and it involves the current working contractual construct / definition.

In the RySG questions they cited to the proposed RrSG accuracy “definition” (aka contractual construct):

"Accuracy shall be strictly defined as syntactical accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address."

Last week when I was looking for the latest and greatest contractual construct/definition I noted that there was a technical glitch when reviewing the Zoom recording which I will summarize below.

If you go to the Zoom recording from the Nov 4th call you will see that the red lined version of the contractual construct/definition which was agreed to during the call and which is reflected below.

[cid:image001.png at 01D7E371.2621FC10]

 However, at the conclusion of the call as we were wrapping up the session, these edits were lost

[cid:image002.png at 01D7E371.2621FC10]


Therefore, I would like clarification from the RySG do they wish to cite the group’s current working contractual construct/definition that was agreed to during the Nov 4th call, or do they intend to cite to the RrSG pre November 4th call  contractual construct/definition?

I know these technical glitches, e.g. delta in Google Doc, Alan receiving emails, and the unavailability email archives makes things a little more challenging. However, I know our ICANN colleagues are working on the email issues, and I am sure we will be able to achieve most of our work asynchronously if we put our minds to it.

Best regards,

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211127/21bdb989/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 355727 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211127/21bdb989/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 374969 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211127/21bdb989/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-accuracy-st/attachments/20211127/21bdb989/ATT00001-0001.txt>