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

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

Your reply template says I "wrote" but note those are Philip's words not mine 
so I assume he will reply. 
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 15 09:16:06 2007
Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A (reponsibilities)

Hi,

I am now confused.

On 15 maj 2007, at 16.12, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

>> 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.


Does this mean that it is now within scope to recommend removing the  
Admin and Technical contact?

I.e. are we no longer talking about the OPOC as a role with  
responsibilities that could be taken over by either the admin or tech  
or another entity, but are actually allowing that we could do a  
replacement?

thanks
a.