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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Philip,

Thank you for your answer.

On 16 maj 2007, at 09.35, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Avri,
> I was answering Ross' question with some thoughts.
> If you need more ask Ross why he raised the question.
> Philip


I guess I am not so much interested in knowing why Ross asked the  
question (at least not in this context, personally I am almost always  
interested in such questions).  What I am really trying to understand  
is the latitude the WG has in its mandate.

Specifically:

During the Whois TF work, it had always been my understanding that  
while we could add a function with responsibilities, called OPoC, we  
could not eliminate any of the information that was mandated by the  
Registrar agreement as being collected by Registrars - including the  
Tech and Admin contact information  (i.e., 3.3.1.7, 3.3.1.8 unless  
superseded by a specific TLDs appendix).  this is clearly indicate in  
the WHOIS TF Report in section 4:

> This proposal pre-supposes that 1) domain name contact data not be  
> available through any sources other than those discussed by this  
> proposal, unless by Registrars, and in that case at the Registrar's  
> option, and that 2) regardless of the information displayed, that  
> the domain name contact data collected by registrars remain as  
> specified in the RAA ("Underlying Whois Contact Data").



I had assumed that this WG, which had been chartered, among other  
things, to better define the role and responsibilities of the OPoC   
was also limited by the same contractual realities as the TF had  
been.  Certainly the charter does not mention recommending changes to  
the RAA.

In your thoughts, which Steve had quoted, I thought I understood you  
as saying those limits no longer pertained.  Since I had not been  
aware of that before, it confused me, hence my question to Steve and  
the list.

My operating assumption is that we are still limited in our mandate,  
and that, not withstanding my interpretation of your thoughts, we  
cannot recommend eliminating any of the information currently  
required, i.e. we are not in the process of recommending changes to  
the RAA. Is this assumption correct?

Thanks again

a.

(note: I ask because I am confused and want to know the right answer.)