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

["Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Milton - 

On your first point - I wasn't actually talking about liability there,
and perhaps I should clarify. When I say that the party one can reach
should be the functional and legal equivalent of the registrant, I mean
just that the mechanism for contacting the OPoC should be functionally
and legally equivalent to contacting the registrant. Functionally in the
sense that we're reasonably assured, in a practical sense, that the
communication actually reaches the registrant, and does so very
promptly. Legally, in the sense that if a third party has an obligation
to provide legal notice to the registrant, that third party should be
deemed to have fulfilled that obligation by properly providing the
notice to the OPoC. 

On your second point, actually, I was AGREEING with you, that the admin
and technical contacts (who are usually natural persons) are NOT
necessarily liable for a domain's use.  But the registrant IS liable for
the domain's use to whatever extent is provided by national law. In the
example you cited of remax.net, you quoted the admin/tech contact info.
Here is the registrant info:

Registrant:
REMAX INTERNATIONAL
5075 S. Syracuse Street
Denver, CO 80237
US

This tells you who the registrant is, gives information sufficient to
verify the registrant's identity (in this case with the Colorado
Secretary of State) and the location information necessary to serve
process upon the registrant. My point is that it's when we lack this
accurate information (as under the OPOC proposal) that we need to look
into the adequacy of the substitute. 

Best,
Adam 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:26 AM
To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx; Scoville, Adam
Subject: RE: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A
(reponsibilities)(reponsibilities)


>>> "Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx> 5/9/2007 5:49 PM >>>
>Purpose of the OPoC's responsibilities: I think the basic 
>principle in defining the OPoC's responsibilities is that if 
>one can't directly reach the registrant, the party one 
>can reach should be the functional and
>legal equivalent. 

No. The basic principle behind OPoC is clearly stated in the OPoC
proposal. Its function is to reliably forward information to the
registrant. Nothing more, nothing less. For many registrants, the
contact will be their own legal entity, but for many others it will be a
service associated with registration. An OPoC should not be legally
responsible for what a domain registrant does any more than an ISP or
registrar should be legally responsible for what one of their customers
does. 

>You're right that this kind of liability isn't imposed on
administrative 
>or technical contacts. But Whois currently (in theory - accuracy 
>issues aside) enables one to contact the party that does have 
>that responsibility and liability - the registered name holder. 
>So you don't need a substitute.

Wrong again. Look up the Whois data for , oh, remax.net:

Domain Name: REMAX.NET 

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: 
REMAX INTERNATIONAL domains@xxxxxxxxx 
5075 S. Syracuse Street 
Denver, CO 80237 
US 303.796.3208 fax: 303 796 3822 

If you call that number you get voicemail for someone called Tina Bash.
Is Tina Bash personally liable and responsible for whatever happens with
that domain?