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

[Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve -

I said this on the last call, but apparently it bears repeating - the 
definitions included in the transfers TF report were stated as advice to 
the legal drafting team, i.e. the ICANN staff, to ensure that the intent 
of the task force recommendations were appropriately implemented within 
the various contracts. As was clearly identified early on in the 
discussion regarding this PDP, these definitions are not suitable to 
adopt as policy and should only be used as a starting point for the 
discussions of this TF.

I don't believe that anyone, at any point, has claimed these definitions 
as part of their position.

Furthermore, your characterization of the registrar position regarding 
the purpose of the administrative contact is wholly inaccurate. The 
Registrar Constituency position is that the role of any point of 
contact, adminstrative or otherwise, is naturally constrained by the 
scope of the policy that the GNSO can effect which is exclusively 
determined by ICANN's mission and bylaws.

The administrative contact is not a general point of contact, its role 
is limited to facilitating inquiries related specifically and 
exclusively to the administration of the delegated domain name.

Personally, I'm extremely interested in hearing how the three or four 
constituencies that you claim share the narrow view of the IP law 
community you represent justify a statement of purpose that clearly 
extends beyond the policy making capabilities of this task force, the 
GNSO and even ICANN.

I'm also still very interested that, assuming that ICANN does have 
policy making responsibility for the entire Internet, World Wide Web and 
other resources described in your proposal, how this will be technically 
implemented in a useful way.

I'd like to recommend to the Task Force that if we do not see a 
meaningful proposal from the IPC on these two vital points over the very 
short term that we move on to more practical matters like say, defining 
the purpose of the DNS Whois system.

Steve Metalitz wrote:
> 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?