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

["Steve Metalitz" <metalitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kathy, if you will re-read my post, you will see that I am not saying
that the admin contact would always have the authority to modify content
or accept legal process.  However, the admin contact would be at a
minimum a point of contact for the person/entity who can do those
things.
 
Steve 

________________________________

From: KathrynKL@xxxxxxx [mailto:KathrynKL@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:06 AM
To: Steve Metalitz; jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Question 2 on tomorrow's call - question


Steve:
Could you help me to understand how your answer to #2 is informed by the
technical information we learned on the last call?  I have buttonholed
every senior network techie I know this week, and they all agree that
the domain name holder need exercise absolutely no control over the
content of the associated host names -- and may not even be in the
technical position to do so.
 
In non-techie terms, as I understand it, the analogy is:  that second
level domain name holder need not exercise any content control -- or
have any ability to edit or modify content -- on websites hanging off
third level domains.
 
If that is the case, how can we call on the Administrative contact of a
domain name to "have the authority to modity content on the site"?  How
would he/she even be in a position to "accept legal process or similar
notifications concerning that contact"?  
 
Here is my fear -- that our definitions of contacts will be out of step
with the fast-emerging world of blogging and other software.  Legal
liability is a huge deal.  The last thing we want to be accused of is
slowing down the technical change of the Internet.
 
Kathy