RE: [gnso-dow123] Proposed Amendment to oPOC Proposal

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

my understanding is that it would be mandatory for registrars to provide
the ability to enter two POCs, and registrars can allow more than two to
be entered.

However many are entered it would be mandatory for the registrar to
display all that are entered.

 

I support the new language

 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KathrynKL@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:54 AM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx; gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Proposed Amendment to oPOC Proposal

 

A belated thanks to Ross for the new language.

My thought is that -- if it is not mandatory, and if it

makes the lives of Marilyn's and Steve's clients measurably easier, 

then we should adopt the new language.

 

Regards, Kathy

 

<<I have amended the proposal document to include the modification I
made 
on the call today intended to address the use case that Marilyn put 
forward regarding the tendency of large corporations to include more 
data than less and her concerns around relying on market mechanisms to 
deal appropriately with relatively small issues such as this.

The amendment changes the requirement for registrars to accommodate a 
minimum of one instance of oPOC data in the whois record, and optionally

additional instances and moves it to a minimum of two in instances where

the registrant wishes to supply data for more than one point of contact.

This does not change the requirement for a registrant to supply data for

a minimum of one point of contact.

The proposed language is as follows:

Registrars must allow a Registrant to provide a minimum of two 
operational points of contact. As a condition of registration, 
Registrants must provide a minimum of one operational point of contact. 
If a Registrant provides a second operational point of contact, the 
Registrar must pubish this data via whois. If the Registrant has not 
specified a second operational point of contact, the Registrar is not 
obligation to publish a null or empty record via the Whois service. 
Registrars may choose to allow Registrants to specify additional 
operational points of contact beyond the second operational point of 
contact. If the Registrant exercises this option, the Registrar must 
publish these additional records in the record of delegation for the 
domain name in question in a manner consistent with the publication of 
multiple nameservers in other areas of this same record.

It was previously:

Registrars may choose to allow Registrants to specify additional 
operational points of contact. If the Registrant exercises this option, 
the Registrar must publish these additional records in the record of 
delegation for the domain name in question in a manner consistent with 
the publication of multiple nameservers in other areas of this same
record.

Regards,

--