[gnso-dow123] Question 2 on tomorrow's call

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the questions Jordyn poses as #2 may be slightly off point,
probably because our discussion on the last call got slightly off point.
We are blurring the distinction between a "responsible party" and a
"contact point."  

 

The IPC proposal on the purpose of the administrative contact is: 

 

"The purposes of identifying the Administrative Contact in the Whois
database are (1) to give registrars a clearly identified authorized
voice of the Registered Name Holder for purposes of managing the domain
name, and (2) to give other members of the public a clearly identified
point of contact for issues regarding the content of the corresponding
website or other Internet resource.  For instance, the Administrative
Contact should have the authority to modify content on the site or to
accept legal process or similar notifications concerning that content."

 

Point (2) speaks of a "point of contact" for content on a website or
other Internet  resource.  Presumably there is a person who knows what
Internet resources are associated with a registered domain name, and can
facilitate or help channel communication between a member of the public
and a person(s) who is/are responsible for the content of each of those
resources.  That person should be named as the administrative contact.
That person may well not be responsible for any of the content appearing
in connection with any of the resources, but s/he is a point of contact
when questions arise.  

 

The last sentence of our formulation may have contributed to the
confusion.  In some cases the administrative contact will have authority
to modify content; in some instances the administrative contact will be
empowered to accept notifications; in some instances he may be simply a
conduit to those who do exercise these roles.  That is why the sentence
begins with "for instance" and why the connector in the middle of the
sentence is "or."  But perhaps this should have been expressed more
clearly.  

 

I note that the proposals of some of the other constituencies also
employ concepts similar to, or at least consistent with, "point of
contact."  For example, the registrar constituency position that we have
just received speaks of "an individual or role that can provide
assistance to third parties" regarding certain questions.  I imagine
that such assistance could either take the form of fixing the third
party's problem, or facilitating the communication between the third
party and someone else who can do so - i.e., serving as a point of
contact.  The registry constituency supported the definition found in
the transfers policy.  So did the Non-commercial constituency.  Under
this definition, "the Administrative Contact is viewed as the
authoritative point of contact second only to the Domain Holder."  Of
course, some or all of these constituencies deny that there needs to be
any relationship between the administrative contact and the content on a
website or other resource associated with the domain name.  Indeed, the
NCUC believes there should not be an administrative contact collected as
part of Whois data, and the registrar constituency believes that
technical and administrative contacts are "on a practical basis" the
same thing, which is another way of saying that perhaps there should not
be a distinct administrative contact.    

 

Two other constituencies seem to say that the administrative contact
"may be responsible for dealing with the content on the web site" (BC)
or is "the individual to address business, legal and policy issues
related to the domain"  (ISPC).  It may be that under these definitions
it is not enough for the administrative contact to be a "point of
contact" regarding the third party's problem but should actually be the
one empowered to deal with or address it.  

 

So of the four constituencies that believe there is any distinct purpose
to the administrative contact and do not oppose its continuing presence
in Whois, three (ISPC, BC, IPC) believe that this purpose relates in
some way to content or to "business, legal and policy issues."  The
fourth (registries) believes (again quoting the transfers definition)
that "the administrative contact should be able to answer non-technical
questions about the domain name's registration and the Domain Holder
"(presumably now referred to as the Registered Name Holder).  David or
Ken, what would those "non-technical questions" be, and how would they
differ from the types of questions that would be directed to the
administrative contact as defined by the BC, ISPC and IPC?  

Steve Metalitz


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jordyn Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 10:56 AM
To: gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dow123] Next week's call


On next week's call (Nov. 15 @ 9:30 AM EST), plan to discuss the
following issues:

1) Is the whois-tech definition a reasonable definition of the purpose
of the technical contact?  The definition would probably read something
along these lines:

The technical contact is a a contact capable of investigating technical
problems involving the registration and
resolution of a domain name (e.g., lame delegation, incorrect DNS
configuration) and taking action to resolve the problem.

Explanatory note:
Technical problems involving the registration and resolution of a
domain name include inappropriate or incorrect domain name server
configuration data in the registration record (including lame delegation
and incorrect configuration of the DNS).  

2) Steve M. (and others are welcome) to follow up with some elaboration
of how to identify which content/internet resources the admin contact is
responsible for.  (What content is the admin contact of blogware.com
responsible for?  How do we identify which content is affiliated with
the registrant/admin contact and which content is controlled by third
parties?  Is there a clear way to define this?)

It would probably be worthwhile to have another topic/question as well.
I am open to suggestions for this last topic.