[gnso-res-sga] today's call

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

sorry all, I am still on music hold and trying to join the call.  I'll
be there as soon as coordinator 811 puts me in.  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hugh Dierker
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:42 AM
To: Scoville, Adam; gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-res-sga] Whois working group -- subgroup A
(reponsibilities)


I think this is a very valuable and salient point that should be
incorporated as definitively as possible.
 
Eric

"Scoville, Adam" <ascoville@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 

        Hi Milton - 
        <snip>
        ...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. 
        <snip>

        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" 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?
        
        
        


________________________________

Building a website is a piece of cake. 
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48251/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhos
ting/?p=PASSPORTPLUS>