RE: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A (reponsibilities)

["Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx>]

Please see exchange below between Ross and Philip. Clearly the OPOC
proposal, as reported by the Whois Task Force, is not written in stone
and we should keep that in mind in our discussions.   

 Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Ross,
> (I've also copied in Steve and Maria).
> 
> I believe we should stick with our charter and that means the mission
is clear.
> I see this in essence as the compromise of privacy enhancement versus 
> the potential to enhance accuracy and responsibility).
> This work must continue.
> 
> I agree with you that the issue of admin and tech contacts are thus 
> peripheral to the main debate. In this context I have the following
suggestion:
> a) It seems wise to not burden a registrant or a registrar with data 
> collection that is redundant. So if you are spending new resource on 
> making the OPOC accurate and responsive, why would you also continue 
> to spend resource on the unchanged obligations for admin and tech ? 
> Rolling these 3 functions into one seems logical. If WHOIS is then a
smaller set of better relevant data, that seems a good outcome.
> 
> b) The WHOIS work will not oblige registrars to do more than WHOIS 
> demands. Nor will it prevent them from voluntarily doing more. It 
> seems therefore that one outcome would be to remove admin and tech 
> from WHOIS leaving it to individual registrars to collect such data if

> they choose. (As they do today for billing contact). Nothing in this
WHOIS process would then oblige them to reveal that. Other mechanisms
might, but they are not our concern.
> 
> c) If having specified what OPOC should look like, it ends up being a 
> resource-friendly implementation for registrars to confer all that we 
> have up till now called "OPOC" upon he who is today called an "admin 
> contact" or a "tech contact", then so be it. The end result will be 
> the same. Who cares what the contact is called ? The renamed OPOC of
course remains within WHOIS.
> 
> Hope this helps. Let me know if my logic is missing a piece of the
blindingly obvious !

This is fair. Thanks.

-r

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:15 AM
To: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Metalitz, Steven; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A
(reponsibilities)

I have now made this request four times and not received any response. 
Can I get an update on the status of this request, or better, an answer 
to the question? I don't think it should take three weeks to answer 
simple questions like this.

Ross Rader wrote:
> What is the status of receiving clarification on the scope issue that
I 
> raised on last week's call? I may not be able to participate today,
but 
> I would like to keep this question alive.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -ross
> 
> Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>> Subgroup A participants,
>>  
>> Since the last meeting we have received only the submissions from
Hugh 
>> and Steve D.  I suggest that we focus on those for our call today.  I

>> hope there will be more proposals for discussion on our next call. I 
>> also call your attention to the "must/may" document tracking OPOC
that 
>> Paul Stahura posted to the main list the other day.  This is helpful 
>> for orienting our discussion in the overall framework of the OPOC 
>> proposal.   
>> Steve Metalitz
>>  
>> Hugh's submission: 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00004.html
>>  
>> Steve's submission:  see below
>>  
>> Paul's submission: 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-whois-wg/msg00198.html
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Hugh Dierker
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:22 PM
>> *To:* gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A 
>> (reponsibilities)
>>
>> Steve,
>>  
>> I think we have a real sticky wicket holding the OPoC liable for 
>> content on a website.
>> The insurance cost would be huge and it would require each OPoC to be

>> a publisher/editor
>> Liability issues on matters like libel prevent this from being cost 
>> effective.
>>  
>> Eric
>>
>> */Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     as discussed on our first call last week, here are my personal
>>     suggestions for the OPoC responsibilities, arranged according to
>>     Steve Metalitz' 4 questions. Looking forward to our discussion 
>> tomorrow.
>>
>>     --Steve DelBianco
>>
>>
>>     1. WHO is the OPOC:  qualifications, identification to/
verification
>>     by registrar, need for consent before listing, etc:
>>     OPoC must have the technical capability, or have immediate access
to
>>     someone who has the technical capability, to address technical or
>>     operational issues regarding activity related to the Registrant's
>>     domain.
>>
>>     The OPoC must have the technical capability and permissions to
take
>>     down a registrant's site.
>>
>>     The OPoC should be a legal agent of the registrant, and must
>>     acknowledge in advance that they could be liable for registrant's
>>     illegal activities
>>
>>     -----------------------------------------------------
>>     2. WHAT issues is the OPOC required to handle - or not:
>>
>>     OPoC must provide accurate and complete details for 24/7 contact
>>     information.
>>
>>     At time of registration or upon any change in OPoC designation,
the
>>     Registrar must validate the completeness and accuracy of contact
>>     information provided.
>>
>>     At time of registration or upon any change in OPoC designation,
the
>>     Registrar should roll proxy contacts to the OPoC.
>>
>>     OPoC must maintain accurate published data.
>>     OPoC must not knowingly allow bad faith or illegal activity at
the
>>     domain.
>>     OPoC must accept contacts of any nature, ranging from technical,
>>     administrative, IP conflict, legal notices, contact from law
>>     enforcement, on behalf of the registered name holder. The OPoC
must
>>     receive and forward any communications to the registrant.
>>
>>     Upon communicating with the registrant, the OPoC must ensure that
>>     the Registrant communicates a response or resolution of the
>>     applicable issue.
>>
>>     If the OPoC is properly informed that their registrant is
phishing,
>>     the OPoC has the responsibility to take the site down immediately
>>     upon proper notice. If the OPoC then fails to take the site down,
>>     the OPoC would be contributorily liable. 
>>     -----------------------------------------------------
>>     3. WHEN must the OPoC act - time frames for response, etc:
>>     OPoC must be responsible for forwarding, within 12 hours of
receipt,
>>     any correspondence and requests to contact the registrant and/or
a
>>     technical resource for the registrant.
>>
>>     OPoC must investigate and take appropriate action (without
>>     unreasonable delay, or, as soon as reasonably possible) in
response
>>     to notice of illegal activity at the domain.
>>
>>     -----------------------------------------------------
>>     4.. HOW would these responsibilities be enforced - what happens
if
>>     they are not fulfilled?
>>
>>     If an OPoC fails to meet their defined responsibilities in the
>>     required response period, resolution of the domain name should be
>>     immediately suspended in these steps:
>>
>>     1. Registrar shall immediately suspend name records for the
affected
>>     domain and suspend webhost services.
>>
>>     2. Registrar shall immediately convey full owner Whois details to
>>     the complainant.
>>
>>     3. Registry shall suspend website DNS, although TTL means that
>>     resolutions would still occur for 24-48 hours.
>>
>>     4. Registry shall lock the domain so that it cannot be
transferred.
>>     The name should be available for resale after __ days unless the
>>     registrant has initiated an approved disputer resolution
mechanism.
>>
>>     Steps taken to suspend resolution should not prejudice any
party's
>>     ability to pursue appeals or alternate dispute resolution
mechanisms.
>>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Food fight? 
>>
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396545367> 
>> Enjoy some healthy debate
>> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. 
>>
<http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTE
wOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx?link=ask&s
id=396545367> 
>>
> 
>