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

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

It's a good point that there's some overlap, Milton, but it seems to me
that in setting up the subgroups it was acknowledged that some degree of
overlap was inevitable and shouldn't prevent the groups from discussing
issues. 

More to the point, I think we are, in general looking at different kinds
of "reveal" circumstances than group B is.

As I understand it, group B addresses what kinds of parties may get
'standing' access to 'full' Whois output by virtue of their status or
rights (as a member of law enforcement, a consumer protection regulator,
an owner of IP rights) without necessarily having to contact the OPoC.
Forgive me if I'm not describing it well, but in any event, Group A has
not been addressing any of these issues.

Group A has been discussing possible "reveal" events in these contexts:
- if the OPoC is breaching its responsibilities - i.e. the system is
breaking down and access to the registrant info (perhaps from the
registrar) is necessary as a fall-back.
- the OPoC receives notice of a particular harm such that merely
relaying communications isn't enough - i.e. the OPoC might have a
responsibility to take down the site, or where the very fact of the OPoC
deprives a third party of rights (e.g. a potential UDRP complainant
can't investigate the registrant's bad faith or lack of legitimate
interest without corroborating contact information on the registrant).

Having just read Steve's response, it seems he's talking about the same
kind of distinction.

-----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     



-