[gnso-res-sga] FYI - REVISED CALL SUMMARY Sub group A, 2 May, 2007

["Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear sub group members,
 
Apologies, I misunderstood part of yesterday's call about substituting
consideration of the admin and tech contacts for the OPoC. This would
actually take place in the context of the OPoC proposal, and not move away
from the OPoC proposal itself. 
 
I've amended the record of yesterday's call to reflect this. 
 
Sorry for the confusion, Maria
 
Sub group A - OPoC

Conference call summary

2 may 2007

 

Participants:

Steve Metalitz (sub group Chair)

Robin Gross

Ross Rader

Hope Melman

Steve del bianco

Pat Kane

Kari Moeller

Glen de Saint Gery

Maria Farrell

Milton Mueller

Carole Bird

Bertrand de la Chapelle

Adam Scoville

 

1           Scope of work

According to the direction of the WG Chair, Philip Sheppard and to the WG
charter, this sub group's job is to examine:

 

"the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for
unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the
responsibilities are not fulfilled."

 

The group does not decide between proposals but may do some initial work on
evaluating them. 

 

On this call, the sub group agreed to work on soliciting proposals that
tackle the following questions:

 

Who:  Who is the OPoC? As a creation of the task force proposal, what are
the OPoC's qualifications, how would it identify itself, what relationship
would it have with the registrar and registrant, and what if any mechanism
would be used to obtain consent of the OPoC before it is assigned as an
OPoC. 

 

What - what issues is OPoC required to handle? From previous work of the
task force, it should handle 'operational matters affecting the domain
name'. However, that conception has been contentious and more detail needs
to be fleshed out. The sub group will gather  examples of domain name issues
on which the OPoC would resolve or pass on information in order to resolve. 

 

When - what is the time frame? How fast should the OPoC act in response to
requests and are there time limits for it to carry out its role to resolve
matters. There could be time frames at several steps. 

 

How - how will responsibilities be enforced if they're not fulfilled?

 

2          Soliciting proposals to address the questions

Steve Metalitz had already circulated the questions above to help sub group
members prepare proposals. 

 

Sub group members need to circulate proposals that address any or all of the
questions in section 1 above. Each proposal doesn't need to address all four
questions.  Endorsed proposals - i.e. by constituencies - are not necessary
at this stage. Contributions are assumed to be those of individuals. 

 

There are three types of query an OPoC might receive:

-                      legal issue, 

-                      technical issue, 

-                      or to provide requester with information in response
to a query.  

 

Specific queries could include a phishing attack or non-fulfilment of a
website order. It would be useful for the sub group to generate a list of
the types of issues that could fall to the OPoC. 

 

Actions:

.                    Sub group members to circulate proposals that address
any or all of the questions in section 1 above.

.                    Proposals need to explicitly address one or more of the
questions to allow them to be compared to each other. 

.                    Sub group members to suggest examples of issues and
queries under the headings of legal, technical and requests for information.


 

3                                Logistics

-                                              The life span of the sub
group is 3 weeks. It will report back to full WG by 

May 23rd. 

-                                              The sub group will meet on
9th and 16th May at the same time. 

-                                              Significant work will be done
on the sub group mailing list. 

-                                              Any items for discussion on
the Wednesday calls need to be forwarded to the 

list by the Monday immediately beforehand. 

 

4          AOB

One sub group member, speaking as an individual, proposed that the sub group
not consider the operational point of contact type but examine the admin and
tech contact types instead within the context of the OPoC proposal. i.e.
retain and re-examine the role of the admin and technical contacts in the
OPoC proposal in place of the specific operational point of contact. This
was based on the assumption that the OPoC would assume the responsibilities
of the admin and tech contacts. 

 

ICANN staff said that a proposed change to the sub group's work would
require going back to the WG to see if it within scope of this sub group.
The issue should also be considered in light of the intentions of the GNSO
Council resolution in Lisbon. The sub group Chair noted that the
constituencies might also be considered. 

 

The sub group agreed that regardless of which contacts are considered, the
questions in section 1 above need to be answered in relation to any
proposal.