RE: [gnso-res-sga] Proposed discussion outline

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

I disagree, I don't see that subgroup A is excluded from discussing
whether one of the OPOC's responsibilities ought to be to disclose
contact information in some circumstances. Access via the OPOC could
coexist with access via whatever system is devised in subgroup B, which
could be focused on different requesters (e.g., law enforcement).  

Steve  

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:46 PM
To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx; Metalitz, Steven
Subject: Re: [gnso-res-sga] Proposed discussion outline

I notice that there is a substantial discussion point here on "Reveal."
I would view that as out of scope for subgroup A. When you talk about
the OPoC revealing the shielded data elements, you are talking about
access proposals. Those proposals are supposed to be covered by subgroup
b. 

The point, again, is not to be bureaucratic. The point is to avoid
duplicating effort and coming up with incompatible proposals and
concepts. The conditions under which an OPoC provides a third party
access to the current contact information on the Registered Name Holder
raises all the questions we are discussing in subgroup b: what third
parties have a legitimate claim to see the data, who certifies them as
legitimate, etc. 

>>> "Metalitz, Steven" <met@xxxxxxx> 5/22/2007 12:18 PM >>>
 Subgroup A participants:
Attached (in Word format) please find an outline I have prepared to
structure further discussion of the pending proposals from Steve
Delbianco ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00007.html)
and
Chris Gibson (
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00027.html).
It follows the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW format, but reflects that the
first
couple of issues have been more extensively discussed than the last. 
It
tries to reflect the discussion on the list and on our calls but of
course there may be issues I have overlooked.  It is intended to
stimulate and structure further discussion, not provide answers.  I
hope
it is useful for our call tomorrow, and welcome your responses on list
prior to that (as well as any additional proposals or further comments
on the two that have been put forward).   

Steve Metalitz     



-