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

["Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com" <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Just a few comments as I will not be on the call.

Steve Delbianco- (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-res-sga/msg00007.html)

2. WHAT issues is the OPOC required to handle - or not: 

At time of registration or upon any change in OPoC designation, the
registrar should roll proxy contacts to the OPoC.

Comment:
I take it the main reason for a proxy OPoC to be shown, is that the
Registrar must verify the OPoC before they are listed. Perhaps the OPoC
could be listed as 'Unverified' then once verified by the Registrar of
record can be shown as 'Verified'. 

'Verified' meaning the Registrar has confirmed the OPoC for this domain
name.


4. HOW would these responsibilities be enforced - what happens if they are
not fulfilled?

Comment:
Both items 3 and 4 can be done at Registrar level, is there any reason to
involve the Registry?


Verification process

The verification process for the OPoC is something that I find hard to
comprehend due to the enormity of the task.

Thanks


Peter Stevenson 
Fabulous.com


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:19 AM
To: gnso-res-sga@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-res-sga] Proposed discussion outline 

 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     



-