[Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED

[Emily Taylor]

Dang!

This document is supposed to contain all of our recommendations.

Thanks Lynn, good catch.  I was intending to put it in and forgot AGAIN.

Trying not to introduce additional language at this late stage Lynn.  Did
we already agree a consumer awareness programme recommendation?  I can't
find it, but happy to be corrected.


I will re-issue this document with Lutz's draft - Lutz, OK if I tweak some
of the language?



On 30 November 2011 14:51, <lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:

> I made a quick read Emily and have no objections to these recommendations.
>
> Are these just the recommendations with some remaining contention amongst
> the team members?
>
> I was looking for Lutz's recommendation on a centralized interface for
> ease of fnding WHOIS data.
> Also want to make sure we recommend that ICANN develop and execute an
> ongoing consumer awareness program.
> I will be happy to draft that recommendation.
> Lynn
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Rt4-whois] Recommendations - updated language SOURCED
> From: Emily Taylor <emily at emilytaylor.eu>
> Date: Wed, November 30, 2011 9:14 am
> To: rt4-whois at icann.org
>
> Hi all
>
> Following the queries on the list overnight, I have tried as best I can to
> piece together the language of the recommendations.The documents I checked
> against were
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Findings+-+conclusions+-+definitions.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1319625303000(Draft Recommendations discussed in Dakar),  and this
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/21135832/Current+WRT+Recommendations+-+v1+-+Nov+21.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1321978947000(The first consolidated draft of what was agreed in Dakar, and MdR).
>
> However, like others, I have found it confusing to understand from the
> multiple drafts posted on the private WIKI, but I do think the draft of 21
> November (second link above) is a fair representation of what we as a team
> negotiated and agreed.
>
> I have gone back to text that we agreed in MdR and Dakar, and tried only
> to add text in the following circumstances:
>
> - Where the sense was unclear, or we were tasking the wrong people
> - Where the text has evolved through consent of the team since Dakar (IDNs
> and Proxies)
> - Where the text has come from another, stable source (compliance
> recommendation on WDRP).  There, as the author and having received a
> comment from James on the correct parties to task, I have cleaned up the
> language.
>
> I hope I have done a fair job on this.
>
> I have noted one place (privacy recs.) where there is contested language.
> My proposal - sorry James - is that we revert to our agreed text from Dakar
> on this.
>
> If I have made mistakes on the source language, I apologise, this is not
> intentional and I am happy to be corrected.
>
> Please carefully consider these recommendations.  They can be improved,
> the language could be better, clearer, but they are what we agreed.  Please
> let me have any show stoppers by 1600 UTC.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Emily
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
> 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
> t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
> emily at emilytaylor.eu
>
> *www.etlaw.co.uk*
>
>
> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>


-- 




*
*

76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322
emily at emilytaylor.eu

*www.etlaw.co.uk*

Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and
Wales No. 730471. VAT No. 114487713.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20111130/bca9c042/attachment.html