ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-res-sga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A (reponsibilities)
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:49:02 +0200

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as being collected by Registrars - including the Tech and Admin contact information (i.e., 3.3.1.7, 3.3.1.8 unless superseded by a specific TLDs appendix).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.)





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy